Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CADET UNITS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give a list of the cadet units that have recently been recognised by that Department; and what their respective strengths were at the latest date for which figures are available?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a return which has been prepared by the British National Cadet Association, showing the number of cadet units affiliated to the association on 31st March last, and the latest available figures of their strengths.

Brigadier-General NATION: Will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of inviting other cadet units in this country, such as the Church Lads' Brigade, the Jewish Lads' Brigade, and so on, to become affiliated to the National Cadet Association, in order that the training of the youth of this country may be organised and run by one Government Department?

Mr. COOPER: I think that that is a matter which must be left to the units themselves; it is not one in which the War Office ought to interfere.

REGULAR AND TERRITORIAL ARMIES (STRENGTH).

Brigadier-General NATION: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what are the respective present strengths of the Regular Army in the United Kingdom and the Territorial Army?

Mr. COOPER: The strengths on 1st March were:

—
Officers.
Other Ranks.


Regular Army in the United Kingdom (including troops in the South Irish Coast Defences).
7,506
99,381


Territorial Army
6,899
124,330

Brigadier-General NATION: In view of the importance of the Territorial Army to-day, and in view of its strength compared with the Regular Army, will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of making one or two major-generals' appointments open to officers of the Territorial Army? In particular, might I suggest one at the War Office—that of Director-General of the Territorial Army?

Mr. COOPER: I will consider that question.

CABLE WIRE.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will specify that all wire used in the manufacture of cable for Army purposes shall be of British manufacture?

Mr. COOPER: It is the practice to require manufacturers, when tendering for Army supplies of cable, to state from what source they will procure the wire to be used, and a substantial preference is given to firms that use wire of British manufacture.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Can the hon. Member assure me that all the cable used shall be of British manufacture?

Mr. COOPER: I cannot undertake to give that assurance, but considerable preference will be given to British cable.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: When the Government are urging all manufacturers to buy British goods, should not the Government set an example?

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that firms in this country sometimes take advantage of that fact?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that British cable is superior to any cable produced on the Continent?

Mr. COOPER: I have no doubt that that is the case, and that is why we give a preference.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: If preference is given to British wire, why should not preference be given to British beef?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING SCHEME, CLYDEBANK.

Mr. LEONARD: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons why he has declined to approve of the scheme of house-building submitted to him by the town council of Clydebank, seeing that the scheme was put forward in response to appeals from his own Department?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (MORAY MUSIC FESTIVAL).

Mr. BURNETT: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the appeal from the secretary of the Moray music festival committee against the imposition of Entertainments Duty upon single entry classes; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The appeal has been received, but it has been found necessary to ask for further information before it can be considered.

Mr. BURNETT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is likely to be a decision soon on this question, in view of the number of forthcoming festivals which are dependent on it?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made, and I am sure that there will be no unnecessary delay.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Lord SCONE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many slum clearance schemes are at present being carried out in Scotland, and the total number of houses involved?

Mr. SKELTON: On the 29th February, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, 71 local authorities were proceeding under the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, with rehousing schemes for the accommodation of persons who will be displaced from houses to be demolished or closed. The total number of houses for which tenders have been approved under these schemes is 6,561, of which 757 have been completed, and 5,804 are under construction or about to be commenced. In addition, 1,106 houses are under construction or about to be commenced by seven local authorities under the 50 per cent. Slum Clearance Grant in accordance with proposals approved by the Department of Health for Scotland prior to the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Under-Secretary tell us how many of these houses are in the Glasgow area?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid that I could not say without notice.

SECOND SCOTTISH NATIONAL HOUSING COMPANY.

Mr. McGOVERN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Second Scottish National Housing Company refuse to conform to trade union conditions by paying travelling and country money to painters when engaged in work in Greenock?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that painters employed by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust) Limited, on work at Greenock are allowed the amount of return railway fares between Glasgow and Greenock for each working day, whether they travel or not, and I am causing inquiry to be made as to whether the conditions of employment laid down in the agreements between the organisations of masters and men are being observed.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the conditions are observed, because my information is that the conditions laid down are not observed?

Mr. SKELTON: I will consider the matter with the facts before me.

Mr. HICKS: Does not the fair wages Clause apply to this company?

Mr. SKELTON: That is a matter on which another question should be put down. I will look into the whole question with the facts before me.

Mr. McGOVERN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the rate per hour paid to labourers engaged on repairs of steel houses by the Second Scottish National Housing Company?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that the rates of wages being paid to labourers employed by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, on the repair of steel houses vary from 1s. 5d. to 1s. 1d. per hour, according to the skill and experience of each labourer.

Mr. McGOVERN: As the trade union rate is 1s. 2¾d., while in a number of cases only 1s. 1d. is being paid, will the hon. Gentleman see that the proper conditions are observed in this case also?

Mr. SKELTON: If I may say so, my answer to the previous supplementary question applies to this one also.

Mr. McGOVERN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate per hour paid to red-leaders by the Second Scottish National Housing Company who are engaged on painting of steel houses?

Mr. SKELTON: I am informed that the rate of wages being paid to red-leaders employed by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited, on steel houses, is 1s. 1d. per hour.

Mr. McGOVERN: As that, again, is not the rate laid down by the building trade organisations, will the hon. Gentleman see that that rate is conformed to also?

Mr. SKELTON: Once again the same supplementary answer applies.

SMALLHOLDINGS, BADENOCH, INVERNESS-SHIRE.

Mr. LEONARD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in reply to the numerous applications for
smallholdings from Badenoch, Inverness-shire, arrangements will be made for early settlements in that region?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Having regard to the schemes in progress in other districts, I regret that it does not seem likely that the Department of Agriculture for Scotland will be in a position to develop a scheme in this area at an early date, but the matter will be kept under review.

BANKRUPTCIES (FARMERS).

Lord SCONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of bankruptcies of farmers in Scotland in each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The figures desired by my Noble Friend are as follow:

1929
…
…
…
…
19


1930
…
…
…
…
18


1931
…
…
…
…
19

EDUCATION (FILMS).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any education authorities have purchased, or proposed to purchase, cinematographic apparatus and a small library of films for the use of the schools in their area; and what is the attitude of the teachers on the subject?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: In December, 1930, the latest date for which information is available, there were 11 schools under the management of education authorities which were in possession of film projectors. In one of them the whole cost of the apparatus, and in another half the cost, had been met by the education authority. I regret that I have no other information on the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

SOCIAL SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total sums expended in Scotland by the Government and local authorities on education in the financial years 1912–13 and 1930–31, respectively?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The total sums expended by the Government and local authorities on education in Scotland in the years 1912–13 and 1930–31, respectively, were £4,739,086 and £13,466,786. The
latter figure is subject to correction on audit. In addition to the total expenditure from the Vote for Public Education, these figures include the grants in aid of Universities, Agricultural Colleges and Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and also, in the former year, the payments made for educational purposes from the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total amounts expended on health and housing, exclusive of relief

Expenditure on Housing and Health Services in Scotland during the years ended 15th May, 1913 and 1930.


Service.
Expenditure out of Parliamentary Votes and Grants.
Expenditure out of Local Bates.
Expenditure out of other Receipts (rents, etc.).
Total Expenditure.



£
£
£
£


Housing, 1913
…
Nil
38,310
105,872
144,182


Housing 1930
…
1,621,000
656,000
2,442,000
4,719,000


Health Services, 1913*
…
30,000†
390,358
10,000‡
430,358


Health Services, 1930*
…
625,000
1,006,000
41,000
1,672,000


* Comprises hospitals, treatment of disease (including tuberculosis and venereal diseases) and maternity and child welfare.


†Estimated proportion of grants for general expenditure.


‡Estimated.

POLICE EXPENDITURE.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total amounts expended in Scotland on police in the financial years 1912–13 and 1930–31, respectively?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: During the years Ended the 15th May, 1913, and the 15th May, 1931, the total net expenditure on police in Scotland amounted to £651,790 and £2,172,335 respectively, of which £220,000 and £1,090,644 respectively was defrayed by Exchequer Grant.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUBSIDENCE, BROWNHILLS WEST.

Mrs. WARD: 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will hold an inquiry into the mining operations at Brownhills West, in the Cannock Chase coalfield, which are being pursued to the danger of life and property?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I am advised that the
to unemployed persons, by the Government and local authorities in Scotland in the financial years 1912–13 and 1930–31, respectively?

Mr. SKELTON: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

I regret that information for the year 1930–31 is not yet available. The following table gives the figures for 1912–13 and 1929–30:

method of working adopted by the mine-owners is not one to which exception can reasonably be taken, and, in the circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot take any action in the matter.

Mrs. WARD: In view of the present over-production in the coal industry, could the hon. Gentleman make further investigations as to whether it is essential that this kind of mining should go on, and should be allowed to pull down a, whole village, depriving many people of their life's savings?

Mr. FOOT: The question of damage that may be caused at the surface is, I understand, one which concerns the Ministry of Health. I have no power to prevent colliery companies from carrying out their work on such lines as they think proper. As the hon. Member will know, this question has been governed by an award that was made in 1870, when power was reserved to carry out mining operations irrespective of what might happen on the surface.

Mrs. WARD: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the dangerous condition of certain properties in Brownhills West, due to mining subsidence; and if he will take steps to have the matter investigated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): My right hon. Friend has caused inquiry to be made into the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. He understands that a number of houses in this locality have suffered damage by mining subsidence, but that there are none which are dangerous within the meaning of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1874, or the Public Health Acts, and further, that there are no houses in so dangerous a state as to be unfit for human habitation as laid down in the Housing Acts.

Mrs. WARD: Does not my hon. Friend consider that a house is dangerous where gas leakages are constantly occurring and where plaster falls from the ceiling when children are in bed?

Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend has any facts which she desires to bring to the notice of the Minister he will be pleased to consider them, but he has made an inquiry, and the result of the inquiry is the answer which I have given.

Mrs. WARD: Will my hon. Friend investigate and consider if the Acts to which he refers are adequate?

Mr. BROWN: The Acts are adequate. The question is not as to the Acts, but as to the facts. If my hon. Friend has other facts to throw any light upon the results of our inquiries we shall be glad to receive them from her.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it mean that houses where there is gas leakage and plaster dropping are fit for human habitation if they are working-class houses?

PIT PROPS.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 35.
asked the hon. Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he can now state what has been the result of the negotiations in connection with increasing the supply of pit props for British coal mines from home sources?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Negotiations and investigations are proceeding, but the Commissioners will not be in a position to report the results for some time.

FOREIGN IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON (for Captain SOTHERON-ESTCOURT): 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of countries which have introduced new import duties affecting in any way the importation of British coal; which these countries are; and what is the nature in each case of the new restriction introduced?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Of the 20 principal foreign markets for United Kingdom coal, which account for about 90 per cent. of the total exports, only three countries have during the last six months placed increased duties upon coal. In Italy a surtax of 10 per cent. ad valorem was imposed on coal in September, and a landing tax of 2½ paper lire per ton was imposed in January on coal imported by sea. In Portugal the Customs import duty on coal was increased by 5 per cent. in February; and in Germany, imported coal was made subject to a 2 per cent. import tax in connection with the German turnover tax legislation.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he is taking in regard to this matter and what line of approach these negotiations will take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what proportion of the coal sent to these 20 countries would in the ordinary way go to the three countries which he has named?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not do so without notice.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the case that these duties are discriminatory against us, and did not the right hon. Gentleman promise to do his best to get this matter put right? Can he say what has been the result of the negotiations that have taken place?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is a question on that point on the Order Paper.

Mr. NICHOLSON (for Captain SOTHERON - ESTCOURT): 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of countries which are adopting discriminatory measures against the import of British coal; which they are; and what is the nature, in each case, of the discrimination?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Quota restrictions on the importation of coal are in force in Germany, France and Belgium. As I have already informed the House, the recent successive reductions of the quota of British coal imported into Germany are regarded as discriminatory against this country. The French and Belgian quota restrictions apply to coal imported from all countries, but the method of calculation of the quotas and the administration of the licensing systems which give effect to the quotas are considered to be inequitable to this country. In Italy the general landing duty of 2½ lire per ton applies only to goods imported by sea, and accordingly affects coal from this country to a greater extent than coal from other countries.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether in the case of Belgium, which has imposed discriminatory duties against us, he has called the attention of the Belgian Government to the fact that we financed the restoration of their industrial life after the War?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations were submitted to the Belgian Government on the 22nd of March, and were followed up by discussions two days later between our Commercial Secretary at Brussels and the Director and Assistant Director of the Mines Department and the Director of the Commercial Relations Department of the Belgian Ministry. We have not yet had the conclusions which were arrived at.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Is the fight hon. Gentleman limiting himself to a protest or is he taking any retaliatory measures?

Mr. LAWSON: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell the House why these countries are discriminating against us?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In reply to the first supplementary, we do not wish to make any threats against any foreign country if it can be avoided, but, of course,
where it is a discrimination against this country we cannot ignore it, and we must take such steps as appear to be necessary.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Has that been done?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That has been done. In reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), the discrimination in each of these cases took place before the new departure in British fiscal policy.

Mr. LAWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why these countries are discriminating against us?

EXPORT PRICES.

Mr. THORNE: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House information in respect to the selling price of export coal for the financial year ended 1929; and if he can state the selling price of export coal to Germany?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ended the 31st March, 1929, the average declared value (f.o.b.) of the total exports of coal from the United Kingdom was 15s. 7d. per ton, and of the exports of coal consigned to Germany 13s. 3d. per ton.

AUSTRALIA (BRITISH MIGRANTS).

Mr. MAXTON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on what date the agreement entered into by the British Government with the Australian Commonwealth Government on 8th April, 1925, giving effect to certain provisions of the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 to establish joint responsibility for the employment of British migrants to Australia, ceased to operate?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The agreement to which the hon. Member refers has not yet ceased to operate, but negotiations are now proceeding for its termination. In view, however, of the terms of Article 9 of the agreement, I could not accept the general description of its provisions given in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that
the agreement does not involve responsibility for the employment of migrants to Australia?

Mr. THOMAS: The general effect of Clause 9 of the agreement is that the Australian Government are responsible for the after-care of the migrants.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise this question at the Ottawa Conference; and is he aware of the deplorable condition of many of these migrants to Australia at the present time?

Mr. THOMAS: I am well aware of it, and it is not necessary to wait for the Ottawa Conference to raise the question; but that is not my hon. Friend's question. My hon. Friend has clearly indicated, not only in this question but in previous questions, that he wants the British Government to take special responsibility for them, and that I do not accept.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has understood, from this or any previous questions that I have asked, that I want to put the responsibility on His Majesty's Government. May I put it in this way? Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to see that one or other of the two contracting parties who entered into the agreement—either the Home Government or the Commonwealth Government—will take responsibility for the maintenance of these people?

Mr. THOMAS: I have indicated previously that, as far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are concerned, the first question put on this point was as to whether I was aware of a differentiation in treatment between those in distress. I took up that question, and ascertained that there was no differentiation. Then came a question as to who was responsible, and I have stated to-day that the Australian Government are responsible. Now comes a supplementary question as to whether I will take steps to see that the Australian Government are held responsible for their responsibility, and, in reply to that question, I say that I will draw their attention to any complaints submitted to me—and, to be quite frank, many complaints have been submitted which show real cases of hardship.

COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. LYONS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of requests which have been made for investigation under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929, during the year 1931 or nearest convenient date; how many company investigations have been made by his Department pursuant to such requests; and in how many instances he has insisted upon security being furnished by the applicants?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Ten requests were made in 1931 for the appointment of an inspector under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929, and in two of these cases inspectors were appointed. In both cases security for the costs of the inquiry was furnished by the applicants. In the remaining cases either the application was not pursued or the Board did not consider that they would be justified in appointing an inspector. In no case was the application dropped as a result of the Board's request for security.

Lord SCONE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many public companies have not lodged annual accounts in accordance with the requirements of Section 110 of the Companies Act, 1929, as on 5th April, 1932; and will he state the number in default on 5th April, 1931, and explain the failure of his Department to obtain every year punctual compliance with the law, although the Act has been in force, in January 1930, 1931, and 1932, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of public companies having a share capital which were in default in respect of their Annual Returns under Section 110 of the Companies Act, 1929, was on the 5th April, 1932, 235. Precise figures for a corresponding date in 1931 are not available but on the 4th April of that year approximately 287 such companies were in default. The reasons for delay in compliance with the Act vary from case to case but where it is not possible to secure compliance cases are referred to the Solicitor to the Board of Trade who takes such action as is necessary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many of these firms are hire purchase firms?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The reason for that Supplementary—

Mr. SPEAKER: That need not be given.

ALLIED SILICA AND CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, LIMITED.

Mr. LYONS: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the request from shareholders of the Allied Silica and Chemical Products, Limited, for an investigation by the Board of Trade under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929, into the affairs of that company; whether he has had representations made as to the hardship that would be entailed by those applying if security for costs of the inquiry had to be furnished; and whether he will, in the public interest, order such investigation to take place without requiring any security?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have considered the request of shareholders of the Allied Silica and Chemical Products, Limited, for an investigation under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929, into the affairs of the company but it does not appear to me that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of an Inspector since, so far as I am aware, no directors or other officers of the company can be traced and the company does not appear to have any offices or books.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that the company has ceased to function and that a number of shareholders have lost the whole of their investments in the concern, he will bring the matter to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions with a view to his giving such consideration and taking such action as the matter justifies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will look into the matter again and communicate with the hon. Member.

ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total nominal sterling capitalisation in all forms of the five principal Argentine railroad systems in which British investors are interested,
and the average annual rate per cent. representing interest and dividends on that total capitalisation distributed to the proprietors in respect of the last two financial years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that it is not possible to give from official sources information on all the points raised by my hon. Friend, but I think he will be able to get the data he requires from the Stock Exchange Official Intelligence.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of the following raw and semi-raw materials imported into this country in the year 1929–30: cobalt, liquid gold, bone, and ceramic transfers?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Particulars of the imports of the commodities specified by my right hon. Friend are not available, as they are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but during the years 1929 and 1930 the declared value of the total imports into this country of cobalt and cobalt alloys was £206,000 and £116,000, respectively, of cobalt oxide £161,000 and £142,000, respectively, and of bones and horns for manufacturing purposes (other than glue-making and for manure) £71,000 and £41,000, respectively.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. LIDDALL: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total tonnage of iron and steel exported from the United Kingdom during the month of March; and the total tonnage of similar materials imported during the same month?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will find the desired particulars in the March issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom" which will be published to-day.

Mr. LIDDALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House to what extent the Tariff Advisory Committee recommend that the British iron and steel industry should be protected?

FOREIGN ELECTRIC BULBS (MARKING).

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 28.
asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether he is aware that electric bulbs of foreign manufacture are marked in such a way that the markings can easily be erased; and whether he will take steps to require these bulbs to be marked in such a manner that the public shall not be misled into buying them in mistake for the British article?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will have the matter investigated.

TEA IMPORTS.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the imports of foreign-grown tea and British-grown tea, respectively, for the quarter ended 30th March, 1932?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. and gallant Friend will find the desired information in the March issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom," which will be published to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: In view of the alarming nature of the figures which I anticipate, will the right hon. Gentleman approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a request that he will give some substantial preference to growers within the Empire?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken note of the suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the continued increase in the importation of foreign-grown teas into this country; and if he will consider the imposition of a duty on them in order that assistance may be afforded to tea grown within the British Empire?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am aware that there has been an increase in the imports of foreign-grown teas, but I am unable to anticipate my Budget statement.

Sir F. HALL: I am not asking my right hon. Friend to anticipate his Budget, but will he give very careful consideration to the enormous increase when framing his Budget?

RUSSIA.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 39.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, if he is aware that the Soviet Government has recently placed an order in Germany for 300,000 tons of iron and steel products; and what steps are being taken by his department to obtain the fullest possible share for this country of Russian orders, particularly in the iron and steel trades?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): With regard to the first part of the question, the order definitely placed, so far as I can at present ascertain, is for 100,000 tons only. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on March 3rd regarding the steps which are being taken by His Majesty's Government to improve the trade balance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there is an order waiting in Russia for heavy engineering if the Government would only extend the credit system?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am aware of the fact that the Russian Government have expressed a willingness to buy, but the difficulty arises that they want a longer time in which to pay than any other country.

Mr. MAXTON: Did not the hon. Member tell the House yesterday that his Department were making a substantial profit on the credits that were at present given to Russia, and, if that be so, would it not be possible to give better terms and make more profit?

Mr. COLVILLE: A profit is always made as long as payments are maintained and the risks are safeguarded.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my hon. Friend say what credit terms the Germans are giving to the Russians?

Mr. COLVILLE: As far as our information goes, the German Government are not giving any credits to Russia, but certain banking arrangements have, however, been made but not by the Governments.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that Germany is getting orders from Russia, and will not the
Government make the same arrangement with Russia as Germany is making and then we could get orders in this country?

Mr. COLVILLE: I have indicated that the German Government are not granting credits.

CUSTOMS OFFICERS (HOURS OF DUTY).

Sir F. HALL: 57 and 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that, owing to the Import Duties Act, 1932, the services of customs officers, including watchers and lookers, at bonded warehouses and transit sheds after 4 p.m. will be requisitioned to a much larger extent than previously; and whether, therefore, he will consider the necessity for altering the hours of such customs officers, including watchers and lookers, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., working in two shifts, thereby synchronising with the hours worked by the dock, warehouse, and ship labourers;
(2) whether, seeing that the working hours of the dock, warehouse, and ship labourers, under the national agreement of April, 1919, were fixed at from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., or two shifts of four hours each, and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturdays, and as a result of the amount of overtime that it has been necessary to pay to customs officers, watchers, and lookers, whose services are required between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m., he will take the necessary steps to arrange for the hours of customs officers at docks and warehouses to coincide with the hours worked by the dock, warehouse, and ship labourers?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on the 10th March to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay).

Sir F. HALL: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in the reply to which he has referred no information was given as to whether or not it could be worked on the two shift basis? Considering that this is not an increase in the number of hours to be worked but only a change in the scope of the regulations, can he say that the Treasury will give careful consideration to the matter with a view to making the necessary alterations?

Major ELLIOT: I will look into that point. I do not think that was raised in the previous question.

Mr. MOREING: Will the Financial Secretary consider meeting a deputation from the Docks and Harbours Association on this matter, in view of the great inconvenience caused at the ports?

Major ELLIOT: I should be glad to talk that matter over with the hon. Member, but I would not like to give an undertaking here and now that I will see a deputation.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give an answer to the representations made to him by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board?

Major ELLIOT: I am seeing the Mersey Members on Thursday, and I hope then to be able to discuss outstanding questions with them.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of this matter in consequence of the Import Duties Act, and will he undertake to receive a deputation, in order that the whole matter may be carefully gone into?

Major ELLIOT: I have indicated that I will have a conversation with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing). I think that is the first step.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is this one of the advantages of the Import Duties Act?

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the list of countries included in the Colonial Empire which are to be given the advantage of the preferential tariff?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the list is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

List of British non-self-governing Colonies And Protectorates, and of mandated territories administered under the authority of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which enjoy the advantages of the preferential tariff:

Bahamas.
Barbardos.
655
Bermuda.
British Guiana.
British Honduras.
Ceylon.
Cyprus.
Falkland Islands and Dependencies.
Fiji.
Gambia (Colony and Protectorate).
Gibraltar.

Gold Coast—

(a) Colony.
(b) Ashanti.
(c) Northern Territories.
(d) Togoland under British Mandate.

Hong Kong.

Jamaica (including Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands).

Kenya (Colony and Protectorate).

Leeward Islands—

Antigua.
Dominica.
Montserrat.
St. Christopher and Nevis.
Virgin Islands.

Malay States—

(a) Federated Malay States—

Negri Sembilan.
Pahang.
Perak.
Selangor.

(b) Unfederated Malay States—

Johore.
Kedah.
Kelantan.
Perlis.
Trengganu; and
Brunei.
Malta.
Mauritius.

Nigeria—

(a) Colony.
(b) Protectorate.
(c) Cameroons under British Mandate.

North Borneo, State of.
Northern Rhodesia.
Nyasaland Protectorate.
St. Helena and Ascension.
Sarawak.
Seychelles.
Sierra Leone (Colony and Protectorate).
Somaliland Protectorate.
South African High Commission, Territories of the—
Basutoland.
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Swaziland.
Straits Settlements.
Tanganyika Territory.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Uganda Protectorate.
656
Western Pacific, Islands of—
British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.
Tonga.
Windward Islands—
Grenada.
St. Lucia.
St. Vincent.
Zanzibar Protectorate.

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS ACT.

Mr. McENTEE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of firms and what are their products which, domiciled on the Continent, have set up factories in Britain since the Abnormal Importations Act became operative?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade have received information regarding upwards of 40 new undertakings which have been set up in this country during the past few months by, or with the assistance of, foreign concerns. The range of the products to be made by these undertakings covers textile materials, garments, electrical and radio goods, toilet products and other articles.

Mr. McENTEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases these arrangements were entered upon before the Act became operative?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are nearly all of recent initiation.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (INVESTMENTS).

Mr. LEONARD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that British insurance companies are more restricted in the range of securities in which their funds are invested than Canadian insurance companies; and if he will take steps to prohibit the agents of Canadian companies from obtaining new business in this country unless their companies conform to the same restrictions as to investments as British companies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Neither insurance companies registered in this country nor companies registered in Canada are subject to any statutory restrictions in this country as to investments of their funds except that the deposits which are required to be lodged by such companies with the Paymaster-General on behalf of the Supreme Court under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, must be in approved securities.

MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATIONS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many full-time examiners were employed on examination work in Scotland for masters' and mates' certificates during the year 1931; what number it is anticipated will be similarly employed under the new scheme of concentration of examinations in Glasgow; and what amount will be thereby saved in salaries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Two full-time examiners were employed in Scotland in 1931 in examining candidates for masters' and mates' certificates. Under the concentration scheme there will be one full-time examiner. The estimated saving on examiners' salaries will be about £500 a year.

Miss HORSBRUGH: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much was received during 1931 in fees from candidates for examination in Great Britain for masters' and mates' certificates?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The fees received from candidates for examination for masters' and mates' certificates during the financial year ended 31st March, 1932, amounted to £3,132.

Miss HORSBRUGH: As the number of candidates must have been nearly 3,000, would the right hon. Gentleman consider raising the fee for the examination rather than closing down centres, and so spread the burden over many more candidates?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will look into that matter and see how it would work out.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would it not be better if the Minister made the examination stiffer instead of raising the fees?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The examinations are now conducted on a schedule that was settled three years ago. I could not propose to revise it again so soon.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is my class that is affected here. It will make it more difficult for them to be masters or mates if the fees are raised.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the profound dissatisfaction in the North of Ireland in consequence of closing these examination centres, and
have not representations been made to him pointing out the inconvenience, which is not compensated for by the small saving the Government make by closing down the establishment at Belfast?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should prefer to describe it as a, concentration of the examination centres rather than closing down. There is a considerable saving in this concentration, and it also makes for a much better organisation of the staff as a whole.

Mr. DEVLIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know perfectly well that great inconvenience is caused by closing down the only examination centre in Ireland—in Belfast—and compelling candidates to come over here and submit themselves for examination? May I also ask whether this is not the only opportunity we have of raising a protest, although we have made private representations to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have answered a good many questions on this subject in various parts of the country during the last few weeks.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an exception, considering the exceptional circumstances and conditions in Northern Ireland, and allow the examination still to proceed at Belfast and not compel candidates to come over to England?

FORESTRY WORKERS.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 34.
asked the hon. Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the number of persons housed on the forest workers' holdings set up by the Commissioners; the average rent of the holdings; the average acreage; the number of head of livestock held by the tenants and the approximate total value of such stock; and the amount of the grants and loans by the Commissioners for the purachase of stock for these holdings?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: The information required, taken from the latest census of the forest workers' holdings established by the Forestry Commissioners, is set out in a table which, with the permission of the House, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Number of forest Workers' holdings
1,041


Number of forest workers resident on the holdings
1,042


Total number of residents on the holdings
4,241

Average annual rent of house, outbuildings and land, £14 8s. 4d.

Average area, 11 acres.

Head of live stock—



Horses:
…
…
…
…
343


Cows
…
…
…
…
676


Cattle
…
…
…
…
347


Calves
…
…
…
…
356


Goats
…
…
…
…
315


Sheep
…
…
…
…
3,053


Pigs
…
…
…
…
1,974


Poultry
…
…
…
…
40,719


Other
…
…
…
…
310

Estimated value of the live stock, £35,942. Grants and loans by the Commissioners for the purchase of live stock, Nil.

POLICE.

Mr. POTTER: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increase in the number of serious offences against the person and property shown by the official return of Criminal Statistics for England and Wales in 1930, he will cause an inquiry to be instituted concerning the adequacy of our police forces throughout the country to deal with these matters?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): The strength of the police forces in England and Wales is constantly wader review by His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary and in my Department, and I do not think that a special inquiry would serve a useful purpose at the present time.

DARTMOOR PRISON (DISTURBANCES).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Prison Reform Society is concerned with the defence of the prisoners charged with riotous conduct in Dartmoor gaol?

Sir H. SAMUEL: Some of these convicts are being defended under the Poor Prisoners Defence Act; others are represented by solicitors and counsel of their own choosing but I do not know how their
expenses are borne. I would like to take 1,041 the opportunity of saying, as I believe some misunderstanding has arisen, that 1,042 the Howard League for Penal Reform has of course no connection with the 4,241 society referred to in the question.

INDIA (LOTHIAN COMMITTEE.)

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for India what estimate has been formed of the cost of the Lothian Commission?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The cost of the present tour of the committee over which my Noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for India, is presiding is estimated to be about £17,500, of which about £5,500 will be met from British revenues and the remainder from Indian revenues.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman what date of termination that estimate supposes?

Captain HUDSON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put down a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

FOREIGN MAILS (SHANGHAI).

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General the route now taken by mails for Shanghai sent via Siberia; and how the time taken in transport at present compares with normal times?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): Mails for Shanghai sent by the Siberian route are at present being conveyed by way of Manchouli, Harbin and Dairen, and thence by sea to Shanghai. The average time of transmission of the mails despatched during January was about 21 days, and during the first week in February, the latest period for which particulars are available, 18 days. The normal time of transmission is from 15 to 19 days.

SAVINGS BANK (DEPOSITS BY CHEQUES).

Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMP: 41.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider making a reduction in the number of days which has to elapse before
a person paying a cheques into the Post Office Savings Bank is able to draw against it?

Sir K. WOOD: As my hon. Friend has been informed in correspondence, it is, I am afraid, impracticable to reduce the number of days which has to elapse before a person paying a cheque into the Post Office Savings Bank is able to draw against it.

Sir F. HALL: When a cheque is paid in, how long is taken to clear it? What is the time allowed?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that it is something like eight days.

Sir F. HALL: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that that is much too long because any cheque in the United Kingdom surely should be cleared within two or three days, or at the utmost not more than four days?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend overlooks the fact that we have to allow a sufficient time for the authority to be presented in any one of the 14,000 Savings Banks in the country. It is not a case of any particular bank, but under our arrangement anyone is allowed to go to any bank in the country and obtain remittance, and therefore we must have a longer term, having regard to the fact that irregularities may occur.

Sir F. HALL: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be good enough to look into the matter and see if something cannot be done to reduce the period?

Sir K. WOOD: I understand that last year over 500,000 cheques were deposited in this way, and I do not think we had hardly any complaints.

Captain ARTHUR HOPE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is an example of private enterprise being better than a State Department?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think that the answer to that question is what I said just now, namely, that 500,000 cheques have been deposited and that there have been no complaints at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

SLAVERY COMMITTEE.

Major OWEN: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the Council of the League of
Nations has appointed an expert commission to inquire into the whole question of slavery, he is prepared to submit to the League of Nations all the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government upon slavery in all its forms?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. The committee appointed by the League will be provided with all the facts regarding slavery which it has been possible for His Majesty's Government to verify.

Major OWEN: Will my hon. Friend consider the desirability of the report dealing with mui-tsai at Hong Kong being included?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir, I will inquire into that matter.

DELEGATES.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the names or the numbers of the permanent delegates to the League of Nations; if any are English; and what salary they enjoy?

Mr. EDEN: There are no permanent English delegates to the League of Nations; but some countries do maintain permanent delegates who are, of course, paid by their respective Governments.

AGED WORKERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister what scheme, if any, has been considered by the Government to pension off aged men now in industry with higher pension rates, conditionally that they retire from industry, so as to absorb some of the numbers of young men between the ages of 18 and 25 who cannot find work?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No such scheme has been considered by the Government.

Mr. CROOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this matter in mind when the report of the Royal Commission is received and the Government are considering the promised comprehensive legisation on Unemployment Insurance, as stated in the House last week by the Minister of Labour?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENTS.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 46 and 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will request the London and Cambridge Economic Service, or some similar body, to examine the unrestricted facilities of the British investment market which enable selling organisations to dispose of foreign bonds, stocks, and shares to British investors and then to advise whether evidence of the losses sustained by British investors, as instanced by the South and Central American defaults and the collapse of certain Swedish securities, calls for the supervision in future by a competent authority of non-British security flotations in Britain?
(2) whether he will call for a statistical examination to ascertain the net benefit to British trade or to private British investors resulting from the marketing here of Swedish Match securities and of Kreuger and Toll securities, after crediting an estimate of profits and commissions on the marketing obtained by the security-selling firms, crediting the dividends, and debiting capital depreciations on the prices at which these Swedish investments were introduced on the London market?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestions, but I regret I cannot see my way to adopt them.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Has not the time arrived when there should be a test of the results of unrestricted overseas investments, so that a practice which has hitherto helped our export trade may not degenerate into a wastage and loss of British resources?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is rather a complicated matter to discuss by question and answer, but, if my hon. Friend will be good enough to see me, I will talk it over with him.

CIVIL SERVICE (SALARIES AND BONUS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the action which it is proposed to take in connection with the proposed consolidation of Civil Service salaries?

Captain NORTH: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he intends to make any decision with regard to the request of the national staff side of the Civil Service Whitley Council to postpone consideration of the proposed consolidation of salary and bonus below the present rate before the opening of the forthcoming Budget?

Major ELLIOT: The representations of the staff side of the National Whitley Council on the subject of consolidation of Civil Service salaries are under the consideration of the Government, but I am not yet in a position to indicate when a decision will be reached. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Captain North) would appear to be under a misunderstanding as to the nature of the proposals placed before the staff side. No reduction of existing emoluments is involved.

Mr. HOWARD: In view of the gradual rise in sterling and the consequent probable fall in the index figure, will the 1920 agreement be carried out automatically?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer that I have just given.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. J. P. MORRIS: 49 and 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish the number of private limited companies in existence in 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931; the number in each year which have been challenged for assessment of Sur-tax by the Board of Inland Revenue under Clause 31 of the Finance Act of 1927; the number of cases in each year where a claim for payment of Sur-tax has been made; and the number of claims actually paid in each year; (2) if he is aware that the Inland Revenue authorities, under Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1922, as amended by Section 31 of the Finance Act of 1927, are assessing to Surtax the whole of the profits made by bona fide private companies engaged in manufacturing industries; and if he will consider amending the law so as to exempt from assessment to Sur-tax all such companies which have distributed a minimum 50 per cent. of their profits or, alterna-
tively, so as to define the words—a reasonable part of its actual income from all sources?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.


(1) Number of companies which have been asked for particulars under paragraph 4 of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1922.
408
574
449
373


(2) Number of companies in connection with which a claim for payment of Sur-tax (or Super Tax) has been made.
70
99
186
153


(3) Number in which tax has actually been paid
66
90
167
144

It will be seen from the foregoing figures that in a very small proportion only of the total number of companies within the scope of the provisions in question has any action at all been taken and, further, that a claim for Sur-tax (or Super-tax) has been made in a still smaller proportion.

Companies engaged in manufacturing industries are not, as such, excepted from the statutory provisions, but I would point out that, in determining whether or not there are grounds for taking action in a particular case, the law requires that regard should be had not only to the current requirements of the company's business but also to such other requirements as may be necessary or advisable for the maintenance and development of the business. The question whether or not in a particular case there has been a reasonable distribution of income is one which can only be determined by reference to the facts and circumstances of that case. A percentage of income which would constitute a reasonable distribution in the circumstances of one case might obviously be quite unreasonable in the circumstances of another and accordingly, even if it were possible to define satisfactorily the class of companies which I think my hon. Friend has in mind, I could not accept either of the suggestions which he has put forward. I would remind him that any company which is aggrieved by any direction given under the provisions in question may appeal to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and if dis-

Following is the answer:

The number of companies to which the provisions of Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, as amended by Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1927, apply is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 100,000.

The following figures relate to the cases in which action has been taken.

satisfied with their decision may require the appeal to be reheard by the Board of Referees, a tribunal of business men presided over by an eminent lawyer. It has also the right to appeal to the High Court on a, point of law.

Mr. LOGAN: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of taxpayers on 1st April, 1931, and 1st April, 1932, respectively, together with the estimated amount of extra revenue obtained during the past financial year in consequence of the exemption limit for Income Tax on certain incomes being lowered in the Budget of 1931?

Major ELLIOT: As regards numbers, the hon. Member will find in table 48 of the recently published 74th Annual Report of the Commissioners of Income Tax estimates of the numbers of Income Tax payers far the year 1930–31. Final estimates of the increase in numbers for the year 1931–32 consequent on the change in graduation effected by the Second Finance Act of last year cannot yet be given but I might refer the hon. Member to the provisional estimates which were given in a reply to a question on the 17th September last of which I am sending him a copy. I am not yet in a position to state how much extra revenue was raised last year in consequence of the lowering of the exemption limit.

ESTATE DUTIES.

Mr. PARKINSON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the practice
of individuals and landed proprietors in turning themselves and their estates into limited companies has any effect on the estimated return from estate duties; if so, what percentage of the reduction in taxes from estate duties is due to this practice; and whether action is to be taken to secure to the Exchequer the full duties that may be due on the death of any person?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: An estimate of the loss of duty, if any, due to the formation of the companies referred to could only be, from the nature of the case, purely conjectural; but I have no reason to believe that the yield of the death duties has been reduced to any material extent by this practice. The hon. Member will recall that legislation to check avoidance of death duties by the method to which he refers was only recently introduced in the Finance Act, 1930. The effect of those provisions is being carefully watched and should the need arise, further consideration will be given to the matter.

BEER DUTY.

Captain NORTH: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any inquiry has been conducted by the Treasury into the effect upon employment of the recent increase in the beer duties; and, if not, whether he will cause such an investigation to be made before drawing up the precise terms of the Budget?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative, but as I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Burnley (Rear-Admiral Campbell) on the 18th February I shall have regard to all relevant considerations in this matter.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONERENCE.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of raising the price level will be discussed at Ottawa; and, if so, whether we shall or shall not be prepared with plans or proposals for reflation to the 1929 level of prices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a, position to indicate whether and in what form this particular matter will be discussed at Ottawa.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the speech that was made by Mr. Stewart, in New Zealand, in which he said that the question would be raised at Ottawa, and must we understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Government have no plans in the matter, or that they do not wish to restore the 1929 price level?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the agenda for the Ottawa Conferences has not yet been drawn up.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When it is drawn up it will be able to include this question of the replacement of the 1929 price level?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If that is the wish of the parties to the Conference.

PUBLIC HEALTH (MANCHURIAN PARTRIDGES).

Mr. J. P. L. THOMAS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Manchurian partridges are being imported at the present time into Great Britain; and whether he is satisfied that the conditions under which these birds are trapped and transported are such that their sale in this country complies with the provisions governing the purity of food supplies?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend understands that very few of these birds have been imported recently into this country. He has no definite information as to the conditions under which they are trapped and transported, but they are subject to inspection at the ports in this country under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations.

Mr. THOMAS: If I am able to give the hon. Member evidence that some of these birds are imported into this country in an infected condition, will he consider it with a view to taking the necessary action?

Mr. BROWN: Certainly, but my hon. Friend will understand that if such is the case they must be subject to these regulations. I may add that in 1930 the total importation of game, including these birds, was only 20 cwts. in the whole year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what Business he proposes to take to-night if the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is carried?

The PRIME MINISTER: We want to-night to get the first and third Orders, that is Supply and the Third Reading of the Transitional Payments Prolongation (Unemployed Persons) Bill, and we should like to make progress with the fourth and fifth Orders, the Grey Seals Protection Bill [Lords] and he Chancel Repairs Bill [Lords]. But we are not suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to make provision for these two Orders. We shall not sit late.

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask if it is going to become the established practice to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule? The Rule was suspended yesterday and the House rose at three Minutes after Eight o'clock. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some better arrangement for business and the convenience of Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad indeed to enter into some agreement to get business through without suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule. All we want is to make it perfectly certain that we get the business set down. We do not want to use the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to get an unfair amount of business through the House.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Edinburgh Corporation." [Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir James Duncan Millar to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords]); and Mr. Entwistle to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Juries (Exemption of Firemen) Bill and the Rights of Way Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Commander Agnew, Lord Apsley, Sir Reginald Blaker, Mt. Bracken, Captain Briscoe, Colonel Broadbent, Colonel Burton, Sir Charles Cayzer, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Conant, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Donner, Mr. Everard, Mr. Grimston, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Hanbury, Major Samuel Harvey, Lieut.-Colonel.Heneage, Mr. Hirst, Captain Arthur Hope, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Captain Knatchbull, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Sir Paul Latham, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Viscount Lymington, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Maclay, Major Mills, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Peto, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pike, Colonel Ropner, Mr. Hamer Russell, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Captain Alfred Todd, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee C as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Juries (Exemption of Firemen) Bill): Mr. David Adams, Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. Maitland, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Wells, and Sir John Withers.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Rights of Way Bill): the Attorney-General, Mr. Buchan, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Holford Knight, Sir Ernest Graham-Little, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan, and Sir John Withers.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords]: Mr. David Adams, Sir Charles Barrie, Colonel Crookshank, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Munro, Mr. Ross Taylor, Captain Strickland, and Captain Watt.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1932.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Captain Margesson.]

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House appreciates the progress made by local authorities since the passing of the Local Government Act of 1929 in coordinating and improving their public health services and, while recognising the need for economy in local expenditure, is of opinion that the development of these services should steadily continue as and when circumstances permit.
When the fortune of the Ballot gave me the privilege of initiating a Debate on this occasion, I felt that I ought to raise this question which, I know, is a subject-matter of concern to the House generally, and which I have no doubt will elicit from the Minister concerned a reply of interest to hon. Members. The Local Government Act of 1929 in its scope and magnitude, in the vast number of interests which it touched and in its effects on the prosperity and wellbeing of this country was one of the greatest Measures ever passed by this House. Whatever anyone may say of the faults or deficiencies of that Act, it must be admitted that it is a great monument to the energy, skill and administrative ability of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer and who was then the Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Postmaster-General and who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and also that great Department over which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) now presides. It was one of the longest Bills ever presented to this House. The Act has 138 Clauses and voluminous Schedules and the provisions dealing with the public health services of this country alone, occupy many pages.
On reading through the Debates which took place during the various stages of
the Bill's progress through this House one cannot help being impressed by the complexity and far-reaching character of its public health provisions. One of the big achievements of the Act was the transfer of the Poor Law services of this country to the present authorities. On one given date—I think it was 1st April, 1930—at a time when 1,000,000 persons were getting Poor Law relief in this country this great change was carried out, and I think the persons thus concerned were hardly aware that a change of such magnitude had been made. The new authorities, on the appointed day two years ago, succeeded in taking over their new duties without failing to relieve any known case of destitution. When one hears persons finding fault with this Act and its working, one cannot help feeling that a tribute of admiration is due to the national and local administration of this country and to the organising ability which could achieve a transfer of such a character, on such a scale, and with so little disturbance to those concerned. I question if any other country in the world could have achieved anything like that change in that manner.
The main objects of the public health provisions of the Act were to achieve, eventually, improved and efficient public health services in this country and, in the second place, to secure economy. These objects were to be achieved by an amalgamation of areas throughout the length and breadth of the country, by the absorption of various services then carried on under the Poor Law, and by co-ordinating these, as it were, into one public health service under the county council or county borough council of the area concerned. This is of course in relation to that section of the population which requires some form of public assistance. Naturally it does not affect the fortunate people who are in a position to pay for whatever services they get. When one considers the complicated nature of these services, and the difficult questions involved in the prevention and treatment of sickness in the ordinary way, the care of the child from birth up to the age of school entry, the treatment of fevers and the prevention of infection from fevers, the care of the mother before and after childbirth, the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis, the prevention and treatment of venereal
disease, the prevention if possible and treatment of lunacy, one realises the immensity of the scope covered by these provisions of the Act. All these services, in so far as they were covered by the Poor Law, are intended eventually to be transferred to the care of the local authorities.
The question of housing also enters into the consideration of this Measure, but I do not intend to occupy the time of the House on that question, because I understand that another hon. Member may raise it at the conclusion of this discussion. The second object of the Act was economy, and this is certainly not a negligible factor. Looking back over the records of the last 40 years I find from such figures as are available that expenditure on local administration, which was £36,000,000 in 1891, is to-day close on £300,000,000. All that expenditure, of course, is not for public health services. I have not been able to secure the exact figures for public health administration, but a very large part of the sum I have mentioned would come under that head. I wonder if the Minister can tell us, in the first place, how the amalgamation of areas is proceeding and how many county councils and county borough councils have submitted schemes. On 1st April of this year these bodies were supposed to submit schemes, subject to agreement among themselves and among the individual local authorities for which they were responsible. Anyone acquainted with local administration must be aware of the difficulties involved in this matter. In the county of Denbigh, which I represent along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts), there has been great activity in this matter. Having pretty well reached agreement the authorities there have submitted or are in the course of submitting to the Minister a scheme which will involve the abolition of four rural district councils. The committee which was entrusted with preparing that scheme has worked very hard and has visited, I do not say every parish, but every local area and every local authority in the county. When one realises what has to be done in this respect in the county of Denbigh and in the Principality of
Wales, one must be impressed by the geographical difficulties involved in such reorganisation.
There is also the question of local sentiment, which is not a small matter. There is a goad deal of rivalry between one local authority and another, and it is no small matter to have submitted an agreed scheme. It will involve some hardship on some local authorities. I have in my Division an urban area which under this scheme will have to take over a place of mushroom growth of which the House may know, called Kinmel Bay. I do not want to dwell on that matter except to emphasise that that is a place which has been exploited by a certain land company which was unknown until they arrived on the scene. There is a population of close on 1,000 people, and they have no facilities for sewerage, lighting or roads, and the adjoining local authorities have undertaken the burden of looking after the mushroom growth of this adjoining parish. I hope that the Minister will make inquiries into these rapidly-growing areas which are exploited by people who after-wards leave the inhabitants in the lurch, and without any means of redress. Many of them are people who have reached the stage of life when they desire some comfort and peace in their old age, and they suffer great hardships in such places. I have no hesitation in mentioning this place Kinmel Bay to the House. I hope that the Minister of Health, in the reorganisation of areas, will deal sympathetically with such places.
Schemes were supposed to be submitted under the Act for the absorption of Poor Law institutions. Some of them were to be absorbed, others were to be altered and made more adaptable to modern conditions. Some of them were to be declared redundant, and some were to be used for a different purpose. That movement was undoubtedly long overdue in the interests of public health. The then Minister of Health mentioned in the House one Poor Law institution in a rural area the inmates of which were composed of seven people who were acutely ill, 55 infirm and senile people, six epileptics, eight certified lunatics, 18 certified mental deficients, nine uncertified mental deficients, one able-bodied man, and three healthy infants. Is it possible that any group of human beings who were less
than supernatural could look after a conglomeration of cases of that kind in a few wards of one institution? Can the Minister tell us whether this institution is still in being or whether some steps have been taken to deal with it? I understand that in the London area very much progress has been made in dealing with Poor Law institutions. I see from the figures of the last report of the Minister of Health that 37 Poor Law institutions have been appropriated for use as hospitals and nine of them for use as children hospitals or convalescent homes.
The case in the country is far from satisfactory. Only 19 out of 79 county boroughs have submitted schemes for the reclassification of their Poor Law institutions, according to the last report, and not one county council outside London has been able to appropriate a single Poor Law institution for the purpose of a general hospital under the control of the local authority. The intention of the Act was that all local authorities should, as far as possible, provide all the assistance which was necessary on medical and health grounds under powers that they possess under other Acts than the Poor Law Acts. The Local Government Act empowered them to make a declaration that such and such health services should be provided otherwise than by way of Poor Law relief. Are the local authorities making any of these declarations? As far as I read the Act, the power is not limited to a declaration at the time of taking over the Poor Law services. I am under the impression that some local authorities believe that these declarations are supposed to be made previous to taking over the Poor Law functions. I understand that that is not so. The Act is elastic enough, and the Minister will agree that it was intended to be elastic enough, to allow of a continuous policy.
4.0 p.m.
Has any county council or county borough yet transferred the health functions of the public assistance committee to the public health committee or to the maternity and child welfare committee? I know that the time has been short, but the whole intention of the Act was that in a certain time, the sooner the better, the county council should take over these public health functions and transfer them to their health depart-
ment. I do not suggest that we should have too much departmentalism in the public service. Medical officers in charge of such services should work as a team. You cannot isolate one service and one man to look after it. There is permission under the Act for medical officers to consult with the specialists of the large voluntary hospitals. I am rather afraid that so far not much in the way of consultation goes on. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the provisions of the Act dealing with this matter are being carried out, and that arrangements are being made for continuous consultation. I have no doubt that the tendency of the Ministry of Health is to get whole-time medical officers under their control as far as they can. Personally, I aim a great believer in the general medical practitioner. I believe that the general medical practitioner has served the country well, and will continue to serve lit as long as any one of us can foresee, and I hope that the Minister will discourage any tendency to relegate, as it were, the treatment of disease to the hands of the officers of the Ministry. If you have a medical officer in charge of a maternity and ante-natal clinic, a large number of expectant mothers would undoubtedly prefer to go to a private medical practitioner. We have to remember that, after all, these general medical practitioners when called upon will have to attend to the mothers in the emergency of their confinement.
I see that some local authorities—county councils and county boroughs—are suggesting doing away with the old Poor Law medical officer. I should be very sorry if that came about. One or two authorities have suggested that visits to patients' homes should be made by their own institutional medical officer, and I see that one authority has proposed, or has had under consideration, the setting up of a panel, something like that under the National Insurance Act, whereby a sick person in receipt of parish relief will be able to select any doctor from the panel in the neighbourhood. I do not think that that will lead to efficiency or economy. The old parish doctors contain among their class the ablest and most conscientious general medical practitioners that the country has. They regard it as a privilege and a pride to look after the poor. In many
areas they are the only doctors there, and attend the rich and the poor, and they live and die—many of them die, I am sorry to say, prematurely—among the population whom they serve. I am very glad to see that, under the Act, a doctor can only be relieved of his office with the consent of the Minister, and I trust that the Minister will reluctantly give his consent, unless, of course, there are medical grounds for doing so.
I come to the second main function of the Act which is that of national economy. I do not know whether it is too soon to know what the result so far has been. The House will remember that a very great change was made by the Act. Grants from the Government were changed from a percentage basis to a form of block grants—consolidated grants. One would like to know what effect the crisis of last September and since has had in regard to public health services, whether the Minister considers that there is a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress maintained without excessive or unreasonable expenditure? We remember that there was a circular No. 1222, issued to local authorities on 11th September last at the time of the great national crisis. Of course, those authorities were enjoined to economise, and everyone admits that it was necessary to do so. It was the belief of the supporters of the Act that the changes produced by the Act would lead to greater economy in administration by avoiding the duplication of service. Is it too early for the Minister to be able to tell the House so far what is the result of the Act in regard to those particular economies?
As a medical man who has been in practice for many years, I know the importance of an efficient public health service. As a Member of this House and a citizen, I also consider that we must have due regard to the cost of national and local government administration. I take the view that the total expenditure of this country is far more than we can afford. While I take the view that expenditure on health services must not be curtailed at the cost of efficiency, I also hold the view that it must be examined thoroughly in view of the state of the national Exchequer. I find, upon looking into the figures of the reduction
in rates, for instance, that local authorities have been able to arrive at a fictitious reduction in many cases, but that, owing to increased assessments, the amount actually expended by many local authorities at the present time is greater. in 1931–32 than in the previous year.
It has been said that this Parliament is a reactionary Parliament. I do not believe it for a moment. It might be fairly said that the last House was a profligate one. I think that the last House spent money at the time without any regard as to where the money was to come from.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us if that is part of the Yellow Book or the Green Book?

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, if he is rather anxious about the expenditure which his party has always supported, that it comes from neither book. I am not quoting any books at the present time. I am only expressing my own opinion that if the government of this country had been left to the party of which he is a member, there would not be very much left for public health services. It is clear that hon. Members are rather unduly sensitive about that. I thought they had become hardened to it before now, because only the other day they went so far with regard to unemployment insurance as to support a non-contributory Measure. I do not think that this House is reactionary in regard to public health. I feel sure it would support the right hon. Gentleman in any measure and all measures that may be required to retain for this country a model public health service of which we have been proud in the past, and of which, I feel sure, we can still be proud. I hope that the Amendment which I have the privilege of moving will enable us to get from the Minister some further interesting information, which, I feel sure, he will be able to give us.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Amendment, which has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend. I would like to endorse very much the general tenor of his proposals, and remind the House that we have to justify any procedure in this House on the
general lines of the mandate given at the last General Election. It was on that mandate that the Government took office, and on which the Government have acted, and it is in the light of that that we have to justify and support the administration of His Majesty's Government. It was a doctor's mandate that was given to the Government, and although we do not hear very much of the medical side, that side is obviously implicit in the doctor's mandate. When the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was speaking in the Debate on the Address, he spoke of the long-suffering working class, and hoped that we should get
for the first time in this country, an opportunity to build a decent State on a decent foundation,
and that the Government would
start to build up a new social order on foundations of human decency, fair play and common justice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1931; cols. 80–81, Vol. 259.]
There could not be a better statement of our aims on this side of the House. It is we, after all, who remember, in the main, the long-suffering working class. Members opposite represent a minority of the long-suffering working classes. We represent the majority of them, as well as other classes, and we, Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals are responsible for a long list of reforms which have improved immeasurably the welfare of the working classes. That which we are discussing this afternoon is only one at the end of a long chain, and no one, however keen he may be on the Socialist programme, can deny the fact that Socialists have not had time until quite recently to initiate reform, that reform has therefore been initiated by Conservatives, Unionists and Liberals, and no one can assert that the condition of the working class is not immeasurably better than it was 100, 50 or even 30 years ago. As regards this particular Measure of local government, after all it was first the Public Health Act, 1875, a Conservative Act, which laid the foundations. It was the Local Government Act, 1888, which introduced county councils, and it was the Local Government Act, 1894, a Measure of a Liberal Government, which introduced parish councils. So that the whole structure is definitely directed to the ideal of the hon. Member for Bridgeton. It is in that light that we have to measure the results of the Act of 1929.
There are four lines of thought in considering that Act in these difficult times. First, we are all agreed that we must maintain the efficiency both of our institutions and their personnel. We cannot allow any economies to reduce that. In the second place, in view of the necessity for economy, we want to make better use of such facilities as we have, to get a better output from them by reorganisation. In the third place, we ought to revise the traditions or the groove into which administration may have sunk in the light of experience. Fourthly we want to advance, if slowly, on the agreed path. What has been the effect of the Local Government Act, 1929, up to date? One has to face the fact that one cannot as yet measure its results by any definite figures, although not long ago the late Minister of Health and others supporting him were trying to measure their efficiency by the decline in the mortality rates. The figures for 1931 are definitely disappointing. That is obviously not due to this Government, though it might be due in some part, if we could measure it, to the Local Government Act. However, we cannot measure the efficiency of that Act by immediate statistics. The birth-rate in that year fell from 16.5 to 15.8, which is the lowest point yet, and I regret to say that the death rate went up from 11.5 to 12.3, and infant mortality rose from 60 per thousand to 66 per thousand. Of course, one might in a ligthhearted way say that was obviously due to the late administration, but I should not use any such criticism, any more than I should use any such argument conversely about the work of our own party; but we have got to face the fact that we are not living in times when we can confidently believe that we are always going to improve. Things have improved enormously of recent years, but the figures of last year are definitely disquieting.

Captain GUNSTON: Does the hon. and gallant Member want to see an increase in the birth-rate?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Of course. Certainly everybody must desire that there shall be the people necessary to carry on our institutions, including this House. The Local Government Act, 1929, was not designed to increase the birth rate, or to decrease it, but the hon. and gallant Member is falling into a terrible
error if he thinks we can view with any satisfaction a constant decline in the population of this country. Fears have been expressed as to the future of our Poor Law institutions, and we might have expected to see some decline in their efficiency as the result of the enormous task of transferring them to new authorities. Let hon. Members think of the task of the London County Council alone in taking over, on the appointed day, the work of 25 boards of guardians, taking over 35 separate infirmaries and 28 mixed institutions. It was a gigantic work, and yet, as my hon. Friend has said, we have not heard of a single case in which anybody has suffered, or in which the efficiency of the institution has suffered. As a nation we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude not only to the London County Council but to all the local authorities—and their officials—throughout the country, and the Government Departments, for the splendid work they performed in carrying through the transfer. It was voluntary work at its very best—work which is little known and little rewarded, except in the feeling the members of those authorities must have or having rendered valuable service to the country. As regards the fears that have been expressed, we feel confident that those fears have not been realised.
Regarding the second point, whether we have better results from this rearrangement, as I say it is too early yet to speak of them, but I think those who have worked professionally with the local authorities or are otherwise in close touch with their work recognise that great advantages are accruing on the professional side of the work of the institutions. Take the appalling waste which arose from having isolation hospitals all over a county. There were one or two efficient institutions in the boroughs and larger urban districts, and then a host of little institutions under different district councils that did their best—and a very fine best it was—to make some provision for isolation cases, but they were wretched arrangements from the point of view of the comfort of the patient, and wretched from the point of view of resources. As a result of the Local Government Act a reorganisation has been undertaken. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us how far that reorganisation has gone,
though I do not think he will be able to tell us very much, because it requires a very great deal of time to come into effect. I hope the reorganisation will be carried on because there will be enormous advantages if we can bring it into effect in the next two or three years.
As an extreme case let us take the provision of smallpox hospitals. We all know how inadequate have been the arrangements for dealing with a small-pox epidemic. At any time it may be upon us, and the arrangements are grossly inadequate. That raises the further question of vaccination, which is the subject of other laws as well as of arrangements under the Local Government Act. It is quite clear that in the revision of our machinery for maintaining the public health we must revise the vaccination laws and the whole of the vaccination machinery. To what extent is the transfer of powers under the Local Government Act preparing for such a revision of the vaccination laws and their administration. The question of vaccination is a large subject and I will not go into it now, but I do hope that the county councils, in taking over powers to deal with smallpox, sanitation and vaccination, will prepare sound schemes which will enable us to deal with the appalling anomaly which exists at the present time—this hypocrisy under which we are supposed to have a system of compulsory vaccination when only one-third or one-fourth, or less, of the population now growing up are vaccinated and protected against the dreaded disease of smallpox.
Another point we have to consider in developments under the Local Government Act is the threat to voluntary institutions, voluntary hospitals and voluntary agencies engaged in health work. The more we co-ordinate municipal work, the more we regularise the official system, the more difficult it is to fit in the voluntary system with it, and yet all of us appreciate the enormous advantages of the voluntary system where it is properly supported in connection with hospital work. Even the most extreme Socialist recognises that for the present the voluntary system must remain. At the present time, when we have to consider both efficiency and economy, it would be perfect madness to contemplate, even in the more distant
future, any interference with the efficiency of voluntary hospitals and other institutions. Over and over again one is met by the statement that the work of raising money for voluntary hospitals and other institutions is degrading, and that they ought to be on the rates. It is said that the burden is partial in that it falls upon certain benevolent people only rather than on the great mass of the people. That is perfectly true, but we cannot have a voluntary system that will bear equally on everybody all round.
The advantage of the voluntary system is that those who give generally help to see that results are obtained from their contributions, and that is why we find voluntary hospitals securing general help.all round from the community in the provision of amenities for the patients, with the result that similar municipal hospitals have a much duller and less appetising air about them. We must recognise that the voluntary system is essential both to economy and to efficiency. The very fact that people associate themselves together in a society to raise funds for a particular institution and to see that it is carried on is admirable publicity for this work and helps the public to understand and to appreciate the institutions which are provided for them. In London we see the problem in its most acute form, though we get it reflected all through the country. In London everything has been done by the officials to try to work in with the voluntary hospitals, and yet the voluntary hospitals feel that by degrees they are fighting a losing battle, that it is more and more difficult to hold their own against the municipal side of hospital work. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point.
I have been in close touch with the 13 teaching voluntary hospitals in London, and they have been seriously perturbed by one fact. In the Local Government Act provision was made for a London Voluntary Hospitals Committee to be in constant consultation with the London County Council, but there are 150 hospitals represented on that committee, and the 13 teaching hospitals feel they have not had their interests adequately considered. There was an idea that the London County Council were going to set up a central teaching hospital which would compete with the voluntary teaching hospitals which have been the founda-
tion of British medicine. I do not believe that is intended by the London County Council, but they are intending to carry out the splendid scheme introduced by the Government before the last one for a post-graduate teaching centre in London.
4.30 p.m.
As regards ordinary teaching there is a definite part to be played by the voluntary hospitals and a definite part to be played by the Poor Law hospitals. How shall these two be brought together? There must be some clear understanding of their relative functions. On the one hand, you have the voluntary hospitals, which must do the main work of teaching and research and which I do not think can be properly carried out by municipal institutions. The municipal hospitals ought to be working in cooperation with the voluntary teaching hospitals, with a view to effecting greater economy. The municipal hospitals have a large range of clinical quarters in their medical schools which should he of great advantage to the rising medical profession, and the nursing profession. The ordinary voluntary hospitals take one-fifth of the cases in London, and they would willingly help the Poor Law infirmaries if arrangements could be made to do so. That would be an advantage to the hospitals and to the municipal institutions. I believe it would also be a great economy and would help cooperation between municipal and voluntary hospitals, which we all wish to see. As regards the grouping of laboratory work, I think there is a great future for co-operation between all our laboratory services.
We have been looking forward to the first revision of grants under the Local Government Act. Grants were made for three years as from the appointed date, the 10th April, 1930, to 1933, and then the new bodies will start under grants for four years and afterwards for five years. I fancy that the Minister of Health is busy with his staff preparing for the consideration of those grants. We are all very much concerned as to what those grants will be, in view of the financial stress of the country. We are all concerned with what is called a fiscal clause, which gives power to reduce grants to those authorities which have not looked after this kind of work properly. The Minister is using those
powers not to penalise authorities but to keep them up to the mark, and that can be done by sending round experienced inspectors from the Ministry of Health. I believe that that inspection has gone on to a considerable extent. If that work is to be spread over a long series of years on account of the limited staff employed at, the Ministry of Health, I am sure that it will be extremely valuable in obtaining information, after visits to those local authorities who have found great difficulty in performing their task as we wish them to do it. I hope it will not be necessary to reduce the grants, and that the power given in Section 104 of the Local Government Act will be found useful in bringing authorities up to the mark. I believe that that is a great constructive Measure, and, if we do not constantly revise those grants, we must proceed on new lines which may prove to be a saving in expenditure in the end. The arrangements should be freely examined from time to time, and in the working of the new Act I believe we have a very great advance which will be shown in the gradual improvement in the figures of actual sickness in the near future.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) said that at the last election the Government received a doctors' mandate. To-day we may truly say that we are discussing a doctors' Motion, because the argument of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) was that he was greatly concerned to protect the general medical practitioner, and it seemed to me that he was more concerned in looking after the general medical practitioner than he was about the health of the people.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In the whole course of my remarks I made no reference to them.

Sir W. JENKINS: The hon. Member for Denbigh referred to the enormous expenditure of the last Government upon these services, but may I point out to hon. Members that the hon. Member for Denbigh supported that Government.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I must be allowed to correct the hon. Member when he says something which is not a state-
ment of fact. I was opposed to the medical administration of the last Government.

Sir W. JENKINS: I think the records will prove that the action of the hon. Member was taken in order to prepare his way for sitting on the opposite side. The Act of 1929 was passed to co-ordinate and improve all public services, and, in doing so, had to remove local prejudices against a central authority. While some progress was made in 1930–31, the whole of the progress is now retarded by the economy schemes submitted by the Government. We on this side disagree with the methods adopted to economise on public health, social services and education. These services should not suffer, as the vitality of the nation depends on our activity in this connection. All the authorities are now warned not to develop any schemes that will warrant Government grants.
The great thing about the Local Government Act of 1929 was that it put all health services under one control, and one is bound to support that kind of scheme. It deals with school treatment, maternity welfare, Poor Law and public hospitals. Clause 13 of the Local Government Act of 1929 gave county councils and county borough councils power to take over Poor Law institutions, and to consult representatives of governing bodies and medical staffs of voluntary hospitals. Every effort has been made to get agreement between national hospitals and voluntary hospitals, but in the depressed industrial areas the voluntary system has failed, and more and more comes the responsibility for rate-aiding these institutions. People in those areas used to contribute one penny, twopence, and in some instances threepence a week towards voluntary institutions, but because of depression they are unable now to make a contribution of 3d. per week. They are reducing their contributions to one penny in a number of instances, and in many cases they are unable to make any contribution at all.
Another important matter is raised by Clause 16, which makes it compulsory for local authorities to recover, where possible, the cost of treatment. Here, again, there has to be a full inquiry as to the means of the patient. I think there is a danger in connection with this
matter, particularly in distressed areas. We should see that no preferential treatment is given, and I am afraid that in some instance preferential treatment is given because the people in the hospitals look upon the patients from the point of view of their ability to pay. This seems to me to be another means test in another form.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: There is no preferential treatment in municipal hospitals.

Sir W. JENKINS: That may possibly be so. I should like to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, an ex-medical officer of health, said in regard to ill-health and the nation in a report which he made in 1927. In that report the hon. Member gave the figures of loss of patients' work, less efficiency due to ill-health, care and treatment in institutions, care and treatment at home, loss of work by those attending the sick, public health services, school heath services. All this, said the hon. Member, involved a loss of over £291,000,000 per annum. That is a very serious matter, and one which should be very carefully considered. There are other losses not enumerated which increase that total very considerably. Sir Walter Kinnear, the Controller of Health Insurance, has stated that practically three-fifths of the burden of incapacity is due to causes, many of which are susceptible to preventative and curative treatment, but, if there is not economy in this service, then this colossal loss and human suffering will increase and the nation will be poorer.
I looked at the Army reports for 1929–30, and there I saw the very significant statement that, as a result of the depression, more than half of the Army recruits were rejected for physical or mental reasons, and that 53.1 per cent. of them were physically unfit. That is a record not provided by those sitting on this side of the House but by the Government itself. Under Health Services, as stated by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, we have ante natal services, midwifery, health visiting, home nursing, infant welfare centres, maternity homes, and hospitals. The local authorities have to take into consideration all these services. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans referred to one part of the report of the
Minister of Health, but not to the whole of it. Whatever he may say with regard to his own party, this is the first occasion on which I have heard him include the Liberal party with the Tory party. Hitherto all the benefits of which I have heard hire speak have been, as he said, due to what the Tory party has done, but since the Tories have joined hands with the Liberal party he now mentions the Liberal party as well as the Tory party. The Minister of Health report on infant mortality for 1930–31 says:
It is pleasing to note that the year 1930 shows the lowest figures recorded since statistics began to be compiled.
It was down to 60 under one year of age per thousand births; in 1928 it was 65; in 1929 it was 17.74 per thousand births. While there has been this gradual decrease, local authorities are told by the two hon. Members who have spoken and who are medical men, "You must economise," because the Amendment says that these services are to continue only "as and when circumstances permit." Until then I suppose everything has to remain at a standstill. On Thursday last the Minister of Health, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), gave the total number of men, women and children in receipt of Poor Law relief on the last Saturday of the month in a series of years. I mention this because it has its effect on the children, inasmuch as they are not getting what they should be getting in the way of maintenance. In September, 1931, the number of people receiving relief was 1,005,813; in October, a month later, 1,050,342; in November, 1,089,023; in December, 1,127,006; in January, 1932, 1,188,628; in February, 1,219,701; in March, 1,220,000. This last is an approximate number. But all the figures show an increase every month compared with 1914, when the total was 643,000.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Was there a seasonal increase in 1914?

Sir W. JENKINS: I do not know. I have taken these figures from the report of the Ministry of Health. I have not taken the whole of the months. I have taken the 1914 figure for March. There may have been decreases during the other months of that year, though I do not know. I quote the statistics for com-
parative purposes. They represent an additional burden on local authorities. This burden has to be borne by the rates. The result of it all is that the social and health services must suffer until, as the Amendment says, "circumstances permit." Yet the Government will continue to grant exemptions of rates by 75 per cent. to breweries which have made such fabulous profits in the past, and to other industries which have been able to show profits. Why should these industries not wait until circumstances permit "? No, it is the poorest who must make the sacrifice every time.
I see in an interim report of a Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Health for 1930–1 an important statement. The committee arrived at the conclusion that of the deaths brought under their notice not less than one-half were preventible. A number of recommendations were then made, and these will be found in page 76 of that report. The present economy means continuing this loss of life. The late Minister of Health, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, in December, 1930, circulated a memorandum to local authorities in connection with that report. He made definite suggestions for tackling the problem, and the local authorities were asked to take the necessary steps. In July, 1931, out of 396 local authorities, 216 had sent replies, and of these 128 had actually adopted proposals. I am anxious to let hon. Members know that, in spite of some condemnation yesterday of the late Minister of Health, the results show that he was very active in dealing with the health of the people.
The replies received from local authorities by the end of June, 1930, showed the following results: Thirty-one authorities were establishing or extending ante-natal clinics; 16 authorities were arranging with private practitioners for routine ante-natal examination in suitable cases; 17 authorities were improving their arrangements; 14 authorities were arranging consultative services with doctors who needed assistance; 20 authorities were providing or extending hospital accommodation; 37 authorities were arranging various types of auxiliary services. According to the Amendment these again must wait "until circumstances permit." I wish also to call attention to the report of the Ministry
of Health giving statistics of blindness. On 31st March, 1929, there were 52,727 registered blind persons in England and Wales. The last return shows a total of 56,853, an increase of 4,126, or nearly 8 per cent., which is a very serious matter for local authorities, as they have to deal with this enormous increase. Is it due to under-feeding? I know men in my own area who were quite strong and healthy until 1920, when they become unemployed and lost their little cottages. They had been working in the mines, some of them, under very difficult conditions. To-day some of these men are practically blind and unable to follow their occupation.
It is pleasing to note that the number of children blind at birth shows a reduction. We can attribute that fact to the public health and clinical work. If we had not acted in that direction, I do not think we should have had this decrease in numbers. We have no right to economise if it is likely to result in the birth of blind children. I hope we are not going to retard this humane progress. We are unable, under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, to provide workshops for these people who are blind, entirely because of our financial condition. Voluntary efforts are failing, and it is now a very urgent matter. We are not in a position to give the assistance that we would like to give in order to provide work and training for these people. In my opinion the Government should economise on non-essentials, on things that can afford to wait without any loss to the nation. It is often said that the greatest asset in any country is its people. It is our duty, then, not to curtail any wise expenditure on the health of our people.
It is sometimes said that we have been wasteful upon local authorities. I want to give a few instances of things that I know in my own area, instances showing how local authorities are penalised by the enormous amount of money that has to be spent in repayment of loans and in interest upon those loans. Take the county of Glamorgan. For educational purposes the loans for elementary education are £78,985. The grant that we get from the Board of Education is £17,497. The net charge upon the county is £61,488. As a result of the block grants the position is this: A penny rate now, instead of producing £10,500, produces
only £5,112. The cost for the repayment of capital and interest on elementary edlucation loans is a rate of over 1s. in the £. In the case of higher education we are getting from the Board of Education 50 per cent. of what we expend. That represents a twopenny rate. We have other services in the county where the repayment of loans and interest represents a 5½d. rate. So we start off with a rate, in repayment of capital and so on, of 1s. 7½d. This does not include the Poor Law cost and the repayment of the Goschen loan, which, again, is a very substantial sum.
Glamorgan County Council has made application to the Minister of Health and to the Board of Education. As a rule, when it is a question of giving grants or permission to do anything, the Board refers the local authority to the Minister of Health. We have made application, and have said that it is absolutely essential that in the interests of the children there should be established two open-air camp schools. That has been suspended under the new order. Two nursery schools have been suspended, permanent clinics for cripples have been suspended. Who can get up in this House and say that a clinic to provide orthopaedic treatment for cripplied children should stand over "until circumstances permit"? No one can raise his voice here or outside this House and say that these children ought for one day to be prevented from having these facilities. Then there are the hospitals and workships for blind children in our blind schools, and the schools for mental defectives. We are told that they must all remain unattended to for the moment.
5.0. p.m.
Then there are the school for crippled children and the extension of the medical services. In normal times the Board of Education say, "We are prepared to support you, and want you to provide medical men." We have done a good deal in our own county, but we are told now that we must not increase the cost, and we cannot increase our rate because we are a distressed area. Because of that we are not able to give to the children and women in our county the necessary facilities; we cannot find the means to meet the cost. We are unable to deal with the provision for backward children in elementary schools, and the authori-
ties are enabled only to improve their black-listed schools, and with not all of them are we in a position to proceed, because the Board tell us that the others can wait for some little time. Another service, directly under the Minister of Health, which we have been compelled to suspend for the time being owing to the cost, is the putting into operation of Section 60 of the Local Government Act, 1929, and transferring the maternity and child welfare service to the county council in the part of the county which is under the jurisdiction of the county council for elementary education. This transfer would have the effect of placing children under supervision, as regards their physical welfare from birth to the time when they leave school. At present the medical service of the education committee does not get hold of these children until they come into the schools, by which time much physical discomfort and deterioration may have ensued, unless it has been arrested by the child welfare service of a district council, and the district councils are unable in most cases, because of their financial difficulties, to do anything.
Then we have the mentally defective children in the county of Glamorgan. We have accommodation at Drymma Hall certified for 79 females and at Hensol Castle for 100 males, but accommodation is needed for approximately 2,500 cases. At present we have about 100 cases detained under orders in institutions all over the country, and we have other defectives sent to places of safety, and some of them in Poor Law institutions, which is very degrading. We ought not to allow that to continue for one day longer; the Minister should look into the matter very carefully and not allow these children to go into the Poor Law institutions. Then there is a large number of urgent cases for whom institutional treatment cannot be found. Are these to wait for the Wood Report, when the requirement of the county is for 2,500 places, until "circumstances permit?"
I come to the urban district council of Glyncorrwg, an area which I know very well and for which I have been a Member for many years. It is a purely industrial area, without any amenities or parks or any satisfactory clinics. They have one nurse for the whole area and one part-
time medical officer, and they are unable to do anything because the charges upon them for loans and repayment of capital and interest are a very heavy burden. On sewers and sewage disposal only the rate is 2s. 9¾d. for repayment of capital and interest, and it means 6s. 7¼d. per head of the population. If we take the whole of their expenditure on loans under various items it means a 3s. 11¾d. rate before they start upon any services at all, or an amount of 9s. 4½d. per head of the population.
I would like to mention the Neath Rural District Council, who again have very great difficulty because of the enormous amount of money that has to be provided out of the rates to pay their loan charges. For sewerage in the Neath rural district the rate is 1s. 3d. in the pound, and they have a water undertaking, which is one of the finest in the country, but it means a 3s. 7d. rate to pay the loan charges and interest. That makes a 4s. 10d. rate out of a 17s. or 18s. rate. How can these authorities provide for the people when they have such a heavy burden and the Board are still saying, "We cannot give you any further grants"? The Neath Borough Council have a loan repayment charge on their general account of 1s. 8d. and on elementary education of 5½d., which makes a rate of 2s. 1½d. There is a number of things in the town that they need and are anxious to get, but they are unable to do so because of these additional charges.
There is one matter in connection with the county where I think the Ministers of Health and Transport could do something to help the men who are now receiving unemployment benefit. Take the by-roads in all the distressed areas of Glamorgan-shire. I do not know whether the Minister of Health can do it, but there is something to do in connection with the health of the people on the by-roads and by-streets, where they have not been able to get proper roads, with the result that these by-roads have in them pools of stagnant water, which is detrimental to the health of the people. Most of them are undrained, and that is a matter of public health and therefore one for the Minister of Health. The local council cannot do it. The hon. Member for Den-
bigh said that some people had been exploiting. The landlords have not made the roads properly in the beginning, and the result is that they cannot get the roads made, and that would he one way in which the National Government could provide employment for men who are willing and anxious to work instead of receiving unemployment benefit. At least, they could have their unemployment pay augmented. Surely the National Government, when they have all the talents and when, as the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans said, they are working together with all the brains pooled, ought to be able to devise a scheme to help the people where there is so much suffering, where the women and children are suffering, and where we want more clinics and better accommodation for the people. Surely they ought to be able to provide some means.
I have seen roads and streets in a terrible condition, and it may be well that you should occasionally hear some of the Welsh names. The Minister of Health may he able to pronounce them as well as I can after he has been at the Ministry for some time. Take the by-roads in places like Cwmllynfell, Cwmturch, Rhiwfawr, Ystalyfera, and Resolven. There are industrial areas which have only got access by the main roads, and all the by-roads are detrimental to the health of the people. I hope the Minister will give us some hope to-night, that he will say something that will benefit us and the people, and that he will not wait until "circumstances permit," but will assure us that we shall get all the assistance possible.

Captain GUNSTON: The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) has made a very interesting speech and suggested various measures by which we might alleviate the difficulties especially in the poorer areas of the country, but I think we had better not ask what the Minister can or cannot do in regard to various anomalies and difficulties, but rather if he thinks, after the passing of the Local Government Act, 1929, the position has materially improved. The hon. Member who has just sat down gave us a very interesting case with regard to pools of water in some very unpronounceable places in Wales, but under the Local Government Act those roads are now to
be taken over by the county council unless they are delegated to the local district councils.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: My hon. Friend the Member for death (Sir W. Jenkins) was referring to by-roads, apart from the main roads and the classified roads.

Captain GUNSTON: It is a small point, but it is a matter for the county council. I would like to ask the Minister if he can give us some information as to the results of the working of the formula. He will remember the great Debate which took place in this House with regard to that most, complicated and ingenious formula. I see in his place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and I remember some of the speeches that he made, in those days when he was not so enamoured of the formula as I was. Perhaps when he replies he will be good enough to say how the formula has worked and whether the fears of the local authorities with regard to it have or have not been realised. Speaking from memory, I believe the late Minister of Health, Mr. Greenwood, told us that on the whole the formula had worked very well, and I think we are entitled to have a few words from the Minister as to how the financial part of the Act has worked.
I have risen really to ask a few questions about Section 2 of the Act, which refers to registrars. I once brought in a Private Bill with regard to registrars' fees, but that Bill was lost in the other place, and the then Minister of Health incorporated it in the Local Government Act. I believe the appointed day with regard to these registrars of births, deaths and marriages was the 1st April, 1932, and the reason why the coming into operation of that part of the Act was so long delayed was the taking of the census. The Minister will remember, with regard to the registrars, that when we went into it we found an enormous number of anomalies and that they were paid by fees which had no relation at all to the work performed. The House felt that these men, who were really public servants, should get a decent salary and should be put on a proper basis, and I want to ask whether the schemes which had to be prepared by the county councils and the county borough councils have reached the
Ministry, because I think they were due by the 1st. April of this year. I want to ask him whether lie has exercised his powers under the Act to increase the fees by 50 per cent. He will remember that these fees had not been increased for 100 years, and, owing to the lowness of the fees, it was impossible for these men to get proper remuneration. I should like to hear whether, under the schemes which are coming into operation, it is proposed to increase the fees, so that these men may at least get proper remuneration for their devoted work which they have carried on for many years.
With regard to maternity services, I think that the whole House, in those long discussions which took place on this tremendous Measure, was agreed as to the necessity of reorganising the medical services in the country districts, and especially the maternity services. Those of us who live in the country were very much struck by the fact that, while we were very short of accommodation in voluntary hospitals, there were many Poor Law institutions which were half empty, and which people did not want to go into because they feared the stigma of the Poor Law. The idea under the Act was to get away from that stigma and reorganise our hospitals so that they could become specialised institutions. We were very anxious that in each district of a county is should be possible to have a specialised maternity hospital. Everyone knows that the difficulty has been to get a poor woman—for example, a farm labourer's wife—into a specialised hospital in time, and we felt that in the country districts the wife of an agricultaral labourer is entitled to as good treatment as the wife of an artisan in a town, where these facilities exist. Could the Minister tell us what efforts the county councils are making to reorganise their health services, and especially maternity services, in the various institutions which are now under their control?
I should also like to ask a question with regard to the guardians committees. The Minister will remember the great Debates that took place on the question of the abolition of the guardians, and the fact that the Minister of Health at
that time met the wishes of the country Members by the system of guardians' committees. I should like the Minister to let us know if that system is working well, and if the former guardians to a great extent make up the present guardians' committees. I should also like to hear how the very interesting experiment of co-opted members is working. There was a good deal of doubt at the time on the question of co-opted members for these committees, but it was felt that by that means we might attract into local work various people who did not want to go through the turmoil of an election. What is the proportion of co-opted members on the guardians committees in the country as a whole?
In conclusion, I should like to re-state my faith in this great Measure. I think that the Government of that day had great courage in reforming our local institutions and the Poor Law, because such Measures are not popular Measure, or Measures which appeal to the sensational Press and get good publicity, but they are necessary, and I believe that this Act will go down to history as one of the greatest Acts that has even been passed through the House of Commons. From time to time, of course, it will be necessary to review it and see how it works. To-day we have one of our first opportunities of reviewing that great Measure, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little more information as to its working.

Mr. PRICE: The hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones), in moving his Amendment, has, I think, endeavoured as far as he could to cover over the attitude of the National Government regarding the public health services since they took office. He said that the Local Government Act, 1929, afforded possibilities for the general improvement of our public health services. I do not think that any one of us would deny that the Measure itself did offer possibilities of improvement in the public health services, and I would go so far as to suggest that, immediately it got into the hands of the authorities who had to administer it, there was an endeavour to reorganise our hospital services and improve our general public health services. This went on for a short period, but, when the National Government took office at
the end of last August, they immediately issued instructions to local authorities to put in force drastic economies in all their public health services. The result has been that ever since this Government came into office, our public health services have been deteriorating and have been retarded. This is the most important subject that has been debated in the House of Commons for some time; there can be nothing more important than the general health and happiness of the community as a whole; and it is very largely on the administration of our public health services that thousands of men, women and children who at the moment are not enjoying good health depend for the improvement of their health.
The Amendment was moved by a Liberal and supported by a Tory and the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) claimed that the party which he represents had given, in the interests of the general community, reform after reform in the public health services. I want to say very frankly that the Conservative party have never given anything but what was forced upon them in connection with the public health services, and I think that the Liberal Member who moved the Amendment was very lax in his defence of the Liberal party in not stating that fact.
Since the National Government, who, we have just been told, are a pool of all the intellect of the House—I suggest that it is a very stagnant pool, that it is either standing still or preventing things from moving speedily—issued their economy instructions, public health administration has been seriously retarded. I have here some figures relating to the West Riding of Yorkshire, a very large industrial area, where, as the Minister of Health will admit, health administration is a very important matter. Since the National Government took office last September, that is to say, during the last six months, there have been savings in nearly every branch of their administration. On the salaries of health visitors there has been a saving of £1,330; on rents of child welfare centres, £250; on equipment of child welfare centres, £1,040 and £1,300 has been saved by not proceeding with 10 child welfare centres. On one of our maternity hospitals, near Mexborough, there has been a reduction of £4,240; on a further maternity home at Skipton, a reduction of £2,560; on tuberculosis treatment there
has been a reduction of £1,290; on ultraviolet ray treatment, £600; on maintenance in sanatoria, £3,890; and on X-ray mobile units, £2,050.
In regard to the provisions which are to be made next year, the Government have sent out economy circulars which, particularly in the case of authorities which have preponderating Conservative majorities, have been accepted and interpreted in the spirit in which they were sent out, and for the forthcoming year further reductions are contemplated in the public health services of that important West Riding county area. They are suggesting a further cut of £27,491, after the 10 per cent. already provided on the ordinary estimates, in the general health services of the area. In the training of health visitors there is to be a reduction of £380; on doctors in emergency cases for maternity, £500; on tuberculosis dispensary rents, £250; on travelling expenses, £150; on extra nourishment for tuberculous patients, £400; on provisions in sanatoria, £150; on domestic renewals and repairs, £170; and on structural alterations, £100. The chairman of the public health committee informs me that a proposal for the erection of a free sanatorium with 100 beds has been postponed, that the provision of a recreation hall in an existing sanatorium where there are 300 patients has been postponed, and that the general cuts in the estimates this year, apart from the cut of 10 per cent. that was made when the economy circular was sent out, amount to a further 15 per cent. of the sum proposed in this year's estimates of the West Riding County Council for general public health services. We are finding, also, that it is more difficult now to give relief in the way of free milk at our clinics to mothers and babies, however necessitous the cases.
5.30 p.m.
I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Health. We desire to see established once more the privileges of administration that we enjoyed during the time that Mr. Arthur Greenwood was at the Ministry of Health. We want to see those services re-establislhed to the full. It is no use Members on the other side of the House patting themselves on the back for the economy cuts that they have made in the public health services during the last six months, and the contemplated cuts during the next 12 months, and at the same time trying to
make the general public believe teat all is well and that nothing has happened. I am afraid that, unless there is a very serious change in the administration of our public health services, our death rate and our infantile mortality rate are likely to increase. I think all of us feel proud that for the last 50 years the figures have been on the decrease, and it will he very reactionary of this Government to bring about further reductions on these services which will be likely to reverse that position. These clinic and maternity and child welfare services are tremendously beneficial to thousands of women and children, and we hope that the Government at an early (late will withdraw that economy circular and open up a path once more for a real administration of our public health services, so that we can aim at bringing happiness and good health to the general population.

Captain ELLISTON: The hon. Member makes a great mistake when he claims for his own party a monopoly of interest in what concerns the public health. I wish to join with those who have paid a tribute to the remarkable and patriotic work done in connection with local authorities since the Local Government Act has been in force. It has been a particularly difficult time, because it has coincided with extreme financial difficulty and depression. I should like to call attention to what has been done by the public health departments of our local authorities to effect their economies in such a way as to maintain a maximum of efficiency with a minimum of expenditure. This has been done without any of those reckless economies against which local authorities were rightly warned by the Ministry in the early days of the crisis.
I know that in the case of Blackburn there has been no break of essential health services during this difficult time. On the contrary, in some departments of the work of the local authority there has been increased activity. For instance, in connection with maternity and child welfare work there has been increasing use of the clinics, and the opportunity has been taken by medical officers and health visitors to impart an enormous amount of valuable instruction in matters of domestic economy and nutrition. The
importance of that can be appreciated when we remember that in that borough of 125,000 inhabitants over 25,000 are unemployed. It is a very significant thing that the use of those centres has tremendously increased in this time of unemployment. That may be explained, perhaps, by the fact that the mothers who in normal times would be in the mill are now able to take their children to the clinic and to seek advice, or again it may be that in an especially enlightened community they appreciate the enormous value of the work done by the clinics.
Another point in connection with the work of our public health departments is the great vigilance with which medical officers in all parts of the country are watching for the early signs of malnutrition or failure in health of the people on account of the difficulties of life at present, and they are able, when they see dangerous conditions developing either among the mothers or the children, to arrange for a supply of milk or for meals which enable them to make up the shortage of their domestic budgets.
The Amendment expresses appreciation of the progress achieved by local authorities in co-ordinating and improving the public health services. We all realise how very much has been done in the great towns in connection with the co-ordination of hospital schemes, and there is no doubt that those local authorities are deserving of the highest praise for having accomplished so much in so short a time. But I feel bound to ask whether any comparable general advance has been made in the county areas. I am hoping the Minister will be able to tell us that the county councils are well on the way towards that grouping of areas which would ensure efficient administration and enable the appointment of experienced, whole-time medical officers of health. I feel very strongly that we must have a lead from the Ministry in the matter of the co-ordination of hospital services in these county areas. The county councils require some guidance in tackling the very difficult problems that arise under the Local Government Act. We could have no finer example of what can be achieved than in Aberdeenshire, where we have a university, a voluntary hospital, a great
city, the county of Aberdeen and the adjoining county of Kincardineshire joining forces to form one of the finest possible health units that could possibly be conceived, and, with the assistance of the Ministry of Health, we may yet see our own county councils in England dealing with the problem on the same bold and courageous lines.
The next point we have to ask ourselves is: Are we spending our money in these hard times to the hest advantage? Experienced workers in public health administration have very grave doubts, and it is a matter of remark that, in spite of the increasing expenditure on maternity and child welfare work during recent years, the children who are entering the schools to-day are still showing a disappointingly high percentage of defects. I find among men who are skilled in public health work a feeling that time and money are being wasted by continuing the systematic and routine inspection of thousands of school children. They believe we have now sufficient knowledge and experience of the general conditions existing among those children and that the time has come when we can cut out that expensive work and concentrate on the children who are known to have defects. Those experts in health matters also believe that now is the time when we have to concentrate on ante-natal work, on the health of the pre-school child, and on the health of those young people in the transitional period between leaving school and entering industry, and that by developing those services without any further expenditure we can get higher efficiency and more important results.
Another matter of special interest to the public health service is that of research. They doubt whether the money that is being spent on research—it is not too much—is being spent in the best way. There is a general feeling that we might have less laboratory and more field research into those ordinary practical problems which are met with every day in the public health departments. There is a general belief that nutrition is the basic problem affecting the health of the people. It is suggested that better housing means worse food and consequent impairment of health and increase in the incidence of sickness. Surely that is the
sort of matter that calls for early investigation so that the workers in the field of public health service may understand better the significance of the conditions they see in their clinics and in the hospitals later on.
I believe all those engaged in public health administration are impressed with the importance of the greater education of the people in health matters. There is a feeling among many men in local authorities that we are doing everything that can be done as regards the personnel and the equipment of the public health services, and it is now up to the people to do the rest. But, before they can take advantage of these services that are provided for them, the people must understand the significance of those services and how they can benefit. I feel certain that the development of this public health education in one of the most economical and effective measures that could be supported by the Ministry of Health. I should like specially to ask the Minister whether he can assure us that in this matter his Department is getting loyal co-operation from the Board of Education. I feel that the House would desire, through the Minister, to acknowledge with satisfaction the work that is being done by local authorities in connection with health. It is very remarkable that they have been able, by tightening up their organisation and asking sacrifices of public officials, to maintain so high a standard of efficiency at such a very difficult time.

Mr. LANSBURY: There are one or two questions which I should like to raise in regard to this Amendment. First of all, I should like to say that, if there are any people deserving of congratulation on the passage of the Local Government Act, 1929, it is Lord Passfield and his wife, Beatrice Webb. If we are going to throw bouquets at one another, I think it will be admitted that the minority report of the Poor Law Commission sketched out the proposals in that Act, and it was generally recognised how much the country was indebted to those two good people for the proposals that they made 30 odd years ago.

Lieut-Colonel FREMANTLE: Your party voted against it.

Mr. LANSBURY: We voted against it for very good and sufficient reasons which were stated at the time. The benefit of speaking in this House, as I have been reminded during the last few days, is that there is a record of what you say. I am willing that the statement which I have just made shall be judged by our speeches and our actions during the passage of the Act through the House of Commons You may support a principle, but you may disagree with how the principle is being applied. For 30 years we have wanted to break up the Poor Law and to deal with it in a, certain way, and the one thing which we very much wanted to do was to take the unemployed, all the able-bodied people, out of the Poor Law, and it was because that was not done in the Act that we voted against it on the Third Reading. That fact is on record. But in so far as the Government of the day in 1929 adopted our proposals and obtained the co-ordination and the unification of local government services we were very much in agreement.
I notice that the Postmaster-General, who can tear an argument to tatters as well as the wisest and best of us, is very much shocked at that statement. Not only did I sign the Minority Report which was devoted to this matter, but I also happen to have done six weeks' imprisonment in favour of that principle. We went to prison because we maintained that London should be unified for the administration of public assistance, and about that there cannot be any question, because not only do the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT prove it, but the records of Pentonville Prison will prove it too. I should not have said anything about the matter but for the fact that the two hon. Gentlemen who opened the Debate wanted to divide the honours between their respective parties. I do not think that on the question of the abolition of boards of guardians and the unification of the work of boards of guardians and the bringing of it in alongside the rest of local government there was ever much difference of opinion among those who had had any hand in administration of this kind.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: You voted against it every time.

Mr. LANBURY: I repeat to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the may look
up the Official Report, and he will see why we voted on certain occasions against that Bill. Although we did not actually vote against the Third Reading we voted in favour of a considered Amendment to the Third Reading which stated our point of view. No amount of argument can get over the fact that anything that is of any value in the Act of 1929 is contained in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission. I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here he would pay the same tribute of respect to Lord Passfield and his wife for the great work which they did in creating public opinon so that this sort of thing might be done. The fundamental blot upon that Act from our point of view, apart from the fact that it did not take the able-bodied away from the local authorities altogether and treat them as a national problem, was the question of finance.
I do not at all accept the view which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for one of the divisions of Gloucester (Captain Gunston) put forward. I do not know at all how far Mr. Arthur Greenwood would say that the formula on which the financial assistance is based is one which does not need any amendment. I believe that when the five years are up we shall find that it will need a very great deal of amendment, and I will tell the House why. Take a district like the one from which I come. We have numerous duties to perform apart from the removal of the Poor Law service. We all admitted at the time that we should not pay more than they pay in rich boroughs, but the Bill made no provision for this, and that was the occasion on which I voted against the Bill of winch I have been reminded just now. The fact is that when we come to new expenditure we have so much less rateable value from which to draw. About that there is no question whatever. You have taken a considerable proportion of our rateable value away by the de-rating part of those proposals, with the result that what new expenditure we have had to embark upon during this period has had to be found out of local funds. I am sure that when the time comes to reconsider these matters one of the things with which you will deal and change will be the financial arrangements.
The reason I am not in any mood to congratulate anybody is that in a period like the present it seems to be absurd to say that you ought to economise on any public health services. In spite of national need and money stringency or anything that you can advance, I maintain that a period of great unemployment is exactly the period when there ought to be more money spent upon health services. At such a time the more needy people are not able to provide for the medical and other services they require. In spite of what has been said since both by the Prime Minister, and, I think, by the Minister of Health, bodies like the London County Council and our borough councils have carried the spirit and practice of economy in health services much too far. I cannot say that here and there so much less money is being spent, but I can say that over the whole field, speaking generally, there is less activity in public health services. That is especially true in London and in districts like mine where the rateable value is now even lower than it was before because of derating. Where the means at disposal are really less we find that the health services are lessened. There can be no question about that fact. When people glory in the fact that expenditure is so much less than it was so many years before, or a year before, it really means that children and women, and others, are having to go without necessities.
I am waiting to see the next year's report of the medical officers of the London County Council. When the year through which we are passing has ended we shall have the report of the Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health and the report of the Medical Officer of the Board of Education. I am certain from only looking at children in school now that the reports will show a very marked difference in the physique of the children. That will be seen to be due to unemployment partly, to the fact that there is not so much money going into the home, and also to the fact that there is less public assistance going to the children. In my district, up to a certain period, when we were supposed to be shovelling out public money lavishly, and without any regard as to where is came from—hon. Members may say whatever they please about it— no child went into school without a proper pair of boots on its feet or without a
shirt and other reasonable clothes upon its back. You can go into the schools now and see the sort of boots and shoes and clothes the children are wearing. There is not a single social worker in the East End of London who would not corroborate what I am saying. I do not think that that is true economy or anything upon which to congratulate our-selves at all. It is exactly the contrary. I repeat that during a period like the present there ought to be more public money spent in this sort of way than at any other period, and it ought not to be a question of saying, "Let us wait for a more convenient season."
That brings me to another point. Her Majesty the Queen has taken a great interest in maternal mortality, and great hopes were raised in the country that the question was to be dealt with effectively. I know that Mr. Greenwood intended to introduce a Bill, but that was a Measure which he was told could not be brought forward because of financial stringency. I ask the Minister to say, when he comes to reply, whether there is any possibility of our getting that particular Bill this year, or whether he can give us any new figures about maternal mortality. It may be that local authorities may have taken such action that the latest figures show a reduction. I have not seen any figures recently, but when the figures were last published the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Health and others joined in saying that we must make a great effort to save mothers in the future. I would like to know whether anything is being done about the matter.
6.0 p.m.
I wish also to say a few words about hospitals. Every voluntary hospital in London, I believe, is more or less in a bad way. They are living, as it were, from hand to mouth. I am always willing in regard to some of the work of the London County Council to say what I really think about it. On the education side some of their work—I am saying "some" because I do not want this statement to be thrown at me—is magnificently done. in regard to the Poor Law hospitals, they are doing a very fine piece of work in making it all a sort of public service without any sort of stigma of pauperism about it at all. They are trying to create, although they have not got it yet, a real municipal health and hospital service. I should like to ask the
right hon. Gentleman what is happening in regard to the proposals put forward by his predecessor for the co-ordination of the work of the voluntary hospitals with the sort of municipal service that the county council is setting up. It is a fact that in certain districts some of the hospitals are terribly overcrowded, while many municipal hospitals are almost empty. There is no earthly reason, once the Poor Law stigma is removed, why anyone should be ashamed or afraid to go into a municipal hospital. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say what advance is being made along that line. I want to see a national medical service throughout the country, and whilst that is coming on I should like to see, especially in London, real co-operation and co-ordination in the work of the voluntary and municipal hospitals.
To-day there is a different attitude of mind on the part of the masses of the people towards going into hospital. In the old days they were frightened from going into a hospital, but that fear has been overcome, and it is a very excellent thing that it has been overcome. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even in these days, will lend the weight of his authority and the experience of his Department to bring about greater cooperation between the voluntary and the municipal services. Fundamentally, all these services fail in one thing. It is true that during a period of unemployment more health service is needed from the community for the individuals. On that there can be no two opinions. Even in good times, when trade is booming, there is still the problem of the persons in slum dwellings or in overcrowded homes who are taken out and upon whom a great deal of money is spent, be they boy, girl, man or woman, in order to cure them, say, of incipient phthisis or rheumatism or some other complaint that has been caused through over-crowding, or, as one hon. Member behind me said, from malnutrition. We are not going to get over that and we shall not properly deal with it until we have thoroughly dealt with the housing problem. I understand that we cannot discuss housing on this Amendment and I do not wish to pursue the subject further except to say that we spend millions of public money in patching people up and sometimes curing them, and then we send
them back to conditions which recreate the disease of which we have almost cured them. In spite of all the appeals for economy and in spite of the demands made for limiting expenditure, I hope the House of Commons will face the fact that it is much better, as an old German doctor said to me in Germany, 30 odd years ago, to spend money in keeping your people healthy than in spending money trying to cure them, when they have been suffering from preventable diseases.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I share with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition admiration for the services rendered by the great municipal hospitals of London, but I do not think that he or the House will overlook the debt which those municipal hospitals, through their medical officers and staff, owe to the voluntary hospitals in which they received their training, nor the spirit which permeates the great voluntary and teaching hospitals of London, through which and by which the medical officers and others have had so much assistance and the community so much gain. The hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) made a remark which leads me to believe that he has not an appreciation of the value of the voluntary hospitals, nor that confidence in their administration which their proud record entitles us to accord them. The voluntary hospitals perform and have performed for many years the greatest service to the health of this country and the progress of medical science, and the two lion. Members who belong to the medical profession who have contributed to our Debate this evening paid their tribute, very properly, to what we owe to the great teaching hospitals and the voluntary institutions as a whole.
A criticism was made this afternoon which those of us who are interested in the subject have heard many times and which has been answered on many occasions, that whereas in the past the voluntary hospital has been able to rely successfully on the benevolent efforts of private individuals, at the present time and more probably in the future the source from which that benevolence has been derived may become slower in its flow and smaller in its volume. That such a tendency exists is undeniable, but when
we look at the course of the contributions to voluntary hospitals over recent years, and during the difficult periods through which the country has passed in the last two years, in particular, it is gratifying to see that the flow of that generous contribution has not fallen off. To-day the voluntary hospitals receive a revenue of £13,500,000 per annum, and, although we do not know what may be their fate in 1932, up to the latest period for which we have records that generous flow has been consistently maintained and has steadily increased.
Let us bear in mind that the revenue for the maintenance of voluntary hospitals is no longer dependent solely upon the generous gifts of the wealthy or the well-disposed. It is now what may be described as a great national cooperative effort. It derives from those who are attracted by the opportunity which the hospital presents of relieving distress and doing good. It derives from the wealthy and the well-disposed, and it derives very largely from those who having received the benefits of the hospitals avail themselves of the opportunity of contributing to their maintenance, according to their means. In addition to that valuable class of contributor we have the great organisations. such as the Hospital Savings Association, which last year had 1,000,000 members and contributed £500,000 in revenue. Organisations of that kind are of untold value to the voluntary system. Not only do they contribute to its maintenance and welfare but they accord to the patient who may have occasion to use the hospital that very feeling to which the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition has referred, namely, that the hospital is no longer a place to be dreaded or avoided but a place to which he contributes and which is his own if he should need it. To that great tendency the future of the voluntary hospitals may well owe much. In view of the great services rendered by the voluntary system it is to be hoped that nothing will ever be done by the great municipal hospitals, however valuable their own part may be in the complete health services of the country, to impair the services rendered by the voluntary hospitals.
A further point on which the hon. Member for Neath touched was the old
complaint, often answered, that discrimination is exercised in the hospitals in regard to the patient, the patient's surroundings and the patronage by which the patient may be given an opportunity of access to hospitals. Those who are familiar with the administration of our peat hospitals are well aware that no such subservience to subscribers exists and no such preference is accorded to one patient over another. To the medical officer, the surgeon or the nurse the patient is a patient, quite regardless of his circumstances outside. He is judged by only one thing, his need and the service which the hospital may be able usefully to render. When the Minister of Health replies, will he be good enough to report on the present relations and the future prospects of that co-ordination between the two branches of national service, the voluntary and municipal hospitals, and will he be good enough to- deal with the question of the intended establishment of a home for the post-graduate course in London? Will he also assure us, if he is able to do so, that nothing will be proposed by the Ministry of Health in the direction of promoting efforts which may cut at the root or impair the opportunity for usefulness of our great voluntary hospitals? Having said that, may I again pay my tribute to the valuable services now being rendered by the municipal hospitals, and my confident belief that there lies between the municipal and the voluntary hospitals a great service in the future to toe benefit and the welfare of the nation and its public health.

Mr. HICKS: I regard this Amendment as somewhat foolish. To start with, it congratulates local authorities upon doing their duty as regards public health. I do not believe that there is a local authority in the land that is doing its duty. I want to bring the House down to realities. We can all pay our tribute to -the heroic services of those men and women in our hospitals who look after the sick and wounded—I wish that they had not half as much to do—but I agree with the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that the money would be much better spent in preventing disease than in establishing large institutions to cope with diseases after they have been contracted. The
duty of local authorities is to get at the causes of ill-health. What are the most fruitful causes of disease in a locality? In the main, I think, municipal authorities are just "come-a-day, go-a-day, and God send Sunday," and "Let us get over the job as easy as we can." No hon. Member who is responsible for this Amendment has given us any evidence that local authorities are tackling this problem with vigour, courage and foresight. There is no department of public life where the presence of the dead hand is so evident as in our local authorities, with their old traditions, their ancient formulae, with their cob-webbery of regulations, with property owners sitting on the council, with red tape, legal red tape, which checks and destroys bold municipal initiative and impairs steady progress.
On the top of all this there is the financial difficulty, made enormous in most instances by the appalling unemployment and the relief of distress that has to be given in various industrial localities. And to crown all is what I regard as the insane economy policy of this Government. If there was any enterprise in municipal authorities it would be very effectively held down by national restrictions. While we are anxious to express appreciation of any person who is doing good work, we must try and get a proper perspective and have regard to the size of the problem and the steps that are taken to grapple with it. We must see how municipal authorities are handling it. Good health is important to everybody. The nation which is truly great is that nation which has the largest percentage of healthy and happy men, women and children. Instead of the Government being at the head of a national crusade to deal with the root causes of poverty and disease, radiating its energies and determination in all directions, it is checking and hampering the movement. I have not been a Member of this House very long. I was in the last Parliament, but far from there being any general evidence of initiative in dealing with these grave problems it has been conspicuous by its absence. This House of Commons is more in the
nature of a money-changing chamber than a chamber for dealing with these matters.
While good health is important to everybody it is everything to the working men. It is their capital. The only commodity they have to sell is their labour. The working man has no capacity to draw rents from property; at least he has no standing. He cannot draw rents from property; he is unable to draw interest from shares. He has no dividends to draw from investments. The only thing he has is his health, and, therefore, good health to the worker is the greatest thing of all. Take that away and his opportunity of obtaining a livelihood is considerably diminished. The diseased or crippled worker is a bankrupt worker; perhaps hon. Members will understand me better if I refer to it in that way. Good health is his capital. It is essential and imperative in his case, but it is just the workers who are subjected to conditions which make good health a chance in some instances and almost an impossibility in others. If I were asked what are the root causes of bad health, I should turn to the reports of our medical officers of health—hundreds of them are available—which tell us that they are bad housing conditions and poor living. We shall all agree about that. I submit that to aim at the prevention of disease is a much greater job than tampering with its effects. Nearly every Department regards itself as justified if it has taken some action to deal with some part of this problem, but, I submit, that as far as the general problem of health is concerned it is substantially let alone.
We must strike at the root causes of ill-health. What municipal authority is doing this? Perhaps those who are responsible for the Amendment will tell us. It is common knowledge that of all breeding grounds of ill-health and disease slums are the worst. Dangerous epidemics usually begin and spread from slums. Public officers with monotonous repetition and statistics after statistics tell us every day and every week of the death-dealing nature of slums, and call upon local authorities and national representatives to deal with them. Infant mortality in a garden city is about 35 per 1,000, but in the slums it is over 120 per 1,000. That fact alone shows that slums are not
healthy places, that they are one of the causes of disease and death; and, if we are to congratulate municipal authorities upon doing their work in a progressive way, we have to ask them what they are doing to tackle the causes of disease. Most municipal authorities are lethargic until someone challenges them. Doctors keep pointing out that overcrowding, lack of sunlight, damp rooms, the lack of proper sanitation, dirt and squalor, which are characteristics of all our slums, create conditions which are veritable hotbeds of fever, tuberculosis, rickets, and influenza. We all know that if one person gets a cold in a house then all of them get a cold; if one person gets influenza, every other person in the house gets it. If one gets a disease they all get it, and if one gets tuberculosis there is a danger of it extending to the rest of the family.
What are municipal authorities doing in tackling these causes? What is their contribution towards dealing with 'this problem? When we are paying our tribute to the splendid service which ministers to the people when they are ill, and no one will desire to qualify it, I submit that the better way is to tackle the problem the other way round. We are all conscious of this. We know that these things will continue to exist unless we take steps to deal with them. Money spent on curing disease would be much better spent in trying to prevent disease. To all intents and purposes our local authorities are doing nothing, or practically nothing, in slum clearance. What they are doing is a mere fleabite; it is not tackling the problem seriously at all. There are millions of our fellow citizens clamped down in these slums. The Lord Bishop of Southwark said that there were over 9,000,000 of our citizens, more than one-fifth of our population, clamped down in slums. He was not too generous in his figures, because there are 2,000,000 of our children, the boys and girls of a great Imperial race, who are being robbed of air and sunshine. We congratulate local authorities on the steps they are taking to deal with this problem.
6.30 p.m.
I cannot deal with some of the remedies which require consideration on this Amendment—they will come up under the second Amendment—but let me say that to-day millions of our people are fester-
ing and rotting in slums. I say to those who have power and authority that for every life which is lost and which could be saved, there is a responsibility on their shoulders. We have no moral right, no ethical right, no political right, no right at all to be indifferent to any effort that can be made to deal with some of these problems of poverty in our slums and to give our people a better environment. Take this great City of London. Take places like Battersea and Bermondsey. The East End of London is one huge slum. There are slums in Battersea and Bermondsey despite the heroic efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) to introduce a little sweetness into those municipalities. Go through these districts and you will see than our people are condemned to live under conditions which give them no possible chance of fighting effectively against disease. There are hundreds of thousands of workers in London housed under conditions of that kind.
I ask hon. Members to read the reports of medical officers, of religious bodies, of independent social investigators on this subject. Men and women of the highest public character and record of service have made investigations in our various boroughs, and they have presented us with staggering reports on the abominable conditions in which many of our fellow-citizens live—conditions of filth, disease and overcrowding, with one family or two families in a room. When we have as many as eight or nine individuals living in one room, how can we congratulate our local housing authorities on their enterprise I If we do so, it must be with our tongues in our cheeks. For all that is being done to deal effectively with this problem, some of these housing authorities might as well be dead. It would be a good job indeed if they were, in order that we might then centre the responsibility upon some body which would tackle it in the right and proper way. I ask the Minister to spur up local authorities who are not dealing with their jobs as they ought to. The health of the people is more important than the dignity of municipalities or local authorities. That is the spirit which ought to prevail, and I ask the Ministry of Health to direct its attention to dealing with causes as far
as possible, instead of having to deal always with the effects of those causes.

Sir H. YOUNG: I heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with very much pleasure. I did not know that I was going to have the happiness to-day of congratulating the official Opposition on another of those conspicuous conversions which have recently been so numerous in their annals. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman's references to the great Local Government Act of 1929—and I listened carefully to his account of the history of the matter—he was in favour of the Measure in the old prison days and he is in favour of the Measure now, but there was a brief and not so recent interval— —

Mr. LANSBURY: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the full history. I am one of the five signatories of the minority report which proposed the unification of local government services. That happened 30 years ago. I think that that might be taken into account, and if the right hon. Gentleman listened to me just now, as I think he did, he knows that if pointed out that it was only certain portions of this Act that I voted against and would still vote against.

Sir H. YOUNG: As regards his conversion to the whole Measure we congratulate the right hon. Gentleman:
And, with the morn, those angel faces smile
Which we have loved long since and lost awhile.
Part of this Debate has consisted of a resolute attempt on the part of some Members of the official Opposition to represent that unwise restrictions are being placed on the public health services, in the interests of economy. For that suggestion there is no shadow of foundation of any sort or kind. The first argument used in favour of that contention was a misquotation of a circular on economy issued at the time of the nation crisis to local authorities. I propose to give the actual words of that circular and to ask the House whether there is anything in it to which the greatest advocate of the efficiency of the public health services could possibly object. The words of the circular are:
His Majesty's Government would not, however, contemplate that local authorities should embark on a wholesale and ill-considered course of cutting down expenditure,
whatever be its character or its purpose. Such a policy seems to them neither necessary nor advisable.
Is there in that any reckless disregard of the efficiency of the services in the interests of economy? Further down in the circular we find the special reservation, that consideration is to be given particularly to whether a service is required on urgent grounds of public health. It is the policy of this Government, as it must he the policy of every Government which has the welfare of the country at heart, to consider public health as a matter of urgent national importance and to regard that economy as a false economy which would reduce the efficiency of the essential services.
The other argument used in favour of this contention from the official Opposition has been the misrepresentation—I do not suggest that it was intentional misrepresentation—of the facts of the case. It is not the fact that there is a reckless and wholesale restriction of the development of public health services or that those services are not being maintained on a basis of full efficiency and reasonable progress. I shall give some facts to show how little there is in the suggestion which has been made to that effect. I have had the advantage, of course, which hon. Members opposite have not had of being able to see the whole field of the figures at once, and I have taken pains to get an estimate of all the schemes of development in matters of public health before the Ministry at the time of the oncoming of the effort for economy. These amounted roughly to £1,000,000 worth and of that not more than £150,000 worth had to be abandoned as not essential. I ask the House to compare that figure with the observations which have been made and to say if that is not the amount which they would have expected from any reasonable administration in view of the urgent financial necessities of the case and their relation to the necessities of public health.
Let me go into the matter in a little more detail in order to show how unjustified is the contention of the Opposition. I do not believe that many words are necessary for me to persuade the House that there is no contradiction between the interests of economy and the interests of public health, but that the two are
one and the same. That money which is spent on essential and urgent services of public health is money spent in the interests of economy, to save waste and to save larger expenditure hereafter. That is the principle at the bottom of all sound administration—that money spent on necessary services of public health is a good national investment. Of those services I would put the following in the forefront, at the present time, and under existing conditions, speaking with full knowledge and with the best advice available as regards the needs of the nation. I would put first the service of maternity and child welfare—there will be no disagreement on that—and the service for dealing with the great scourge of tuberculosis. I take these two as examples of outstanding urgent public health services and I propose to give one or two facts to show that in those services there is none of that reckless abandonment of public health work which has been suggested from the benches opposite.
About tuberculosis I may say in passing that we have now an important new weapon in the fight against that great white scourge. Since the initiation of the new system of local administration, owing to the co-ordination of public assistance with public health services, we can now follow up cases when they leave the sanatorium. We can effect a more perfect co-ordination in that respect, so that the fighting effort against the disease can be more effectively brought to bear. Let me take, as a test of the maintenance of the effort for the public health services, the treatment facilities available for tuberculosis. At the end of December, 1930, the number of beds available was 15,972; at the end of December, 1931, the number available was 17,609. There is no evidence there of relaxation of effort. In regard to the other great service which I have mentioned, namely, maternity and child welfare, at the end of 1931 the number of infant welfare centres in England and Wales was 3,043 compared with 2,935 at the end of 1930. Again an increase. No evidence of relaxation of effort there. The number of ante-natal clinics in England and Wales at the end of 1931 was 1,262 compared with 1,101 at the end of 1930. I assert without fear of contradiction that if the House looks into the actual figures and facts and the record of work done for the essential ser-
vices of public health, they will find no evidence whatever of that slacking of effort which has been suggested this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of maternal mortality. We all know the whip of failure which is urging us forward in connection with this matter. It is the failure to secure a reduction of maternal mortality, and that reduction is the goal which we have set before us. I know that a scheme was put forward under the late Labour administration for the service to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but he will forgive me for saying that I think that scheme was typical of the complete lack of touch with realities in administration shown by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. It would have placed a burden on the country's finances of a nature which the country was totally unable to bear at the time. I contend also that it was not well conceived to get the best possible use out of the public money which would have been so largely required to finance it. But because that is a frank impossibility at this time, does it mean that we are to relax in the effort of the war on maternal mortality? On the contrary, to get rid of illusions will enable us to proceed in the most practical way and to get the best use of the resources available.
We have already sent a circular to the local authorities for this purpose. There are services for promoting the welfare of mother and child before, at, and after birth which local authorities can render. They do not all render it. What can be done is to stimulate the local authorities to come up to the standard of the best, and until we make the best use of the powers we have, it is waste of time to give new powers. That is what the effort of the Ministry will be under my direction with the consent of His Majesty's Government. Further effort will be made to persuade the local authorities—those that need persuasion; there are many who do not—to improve and strengthen their maternity services. Stress must be laid on the importance of educating the women themselves to take advantage of the services. It is no good providing services if people do not know enough to take advantage of them, and you must go from
the provision of the services to the provision of education to make people appreciate their value. Particular attention must be paid, of course, in the interests of economy to those areas in which the mortality among mothers is the highest. It is there that we must direct the biggest effort. It is in this direction that we must look for the really successful advance against this great foe of the human race.
I should like to pause at this point to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) on the use that he has made of his good fortune in the Ballot by introducing this topic and on the extremely thoughtful and informing speech which he made. I listened with consternation to the expert knowledge which he conveyed of these regions of administration. It is most interesting at the beginning of this important reform in administration to stand before the House and to give some account of the advance which has been made in the working out of the many far-reaching and far-regarding schemes that were laid down in the Local Government Act, and to point out, what experience shows to be the case, the verification of the high expectations which were formed at the time the Act was passed. I think the report to be good. As far as good expectations ever found their fulfilment in this bad world, I think that in this case there has been a measure of fulfilment of expectation which is above normal.
The co-ordination of public health and public assistance—that is, the old Poor Law—is already yielding most valuable and interesting and important results, both in efficiency and in economy, which is part of efficiency. I think that I see a stimulus to the activity of local authorities, and I think that I see it resulting from the fact that they are freer in matters of finance in the sense that they are more masters in their own house. That is the result of the block grant system which gives them a security and control which were lacking from the old percentage grant system. Let me, in passing, make a reference to the sum, with which hon. Members will be well acquainted, of £5,000,000 of new money which was put into the scheme, that is £5,000,000 increase in Exchequer money which was made available for local authorities at the time of the institution
of the block grant system. That money has for its specific purpose the promotion and extension of such services as those which we are considering to-day. I refer to this in order to show that in the general scheme of our finances there is no need for an immediate grip of parsimony such as there is in some other national services, because there is this margin in the block grant for the development of such services as those to which I refer. When I speak of the extension of the maternity services and the effort to be made to secure a better standard in those services among local authorities, I am relying upon the margin which was provided by this £5,000,000 to make possible such extension and development.
That is one benefit from the new scheme, namely, a greater sense of freedom and initiative for local authorities. I find another benefit closer than that. That is an ability on. the part of the Ministry of Health to concentrate with a more single mind on its more proper work. The appropriate sphere for the action of the Ministry of Health in this regard is to be the clearing house of knowledge and information and not, let me assure the hon. and gallant Member for Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), the arbitrary tyrant, but the clearing house of knowledge and information and the source from which counsel and advice can proceed in order to place the local authority, which is in its nature local, in touch with the best examples and best knowledge available for their service. The Ministry has another great function. It has, to a large extent, to be the staff brains of the whole national health services. I am not meaning to claim any monopoly of brains for the Ministry of Health or for the Minister in relation to the national health services. I carefully say the staff brains, whose function is to provide the staff work for the national health services, that is, the kind of work which can best be done by a central staff.
I would invite the attention of the House to special inquiries which we carried out quite recently in the discharge of these staff functions into tuberculosis, cancer and cerebrospinal meningitis. They are characteristic of the good work which can be done by the central body for the help of the local authorities,
in putting the best knowledge at their service and enabling them to direct their own efforts in their contest with these diseases into the best channels. Another characteristic bit of staff work of this sort at the Ministry of Health is in connection with the important matter of nutrition. This is a modern science on which floods of fresh light are being cast every day, and it is difficult even for the medical officers to keep up-to-date with the latest information. In order to help them we have instituted a new standing advisory committee to concentrate and to bring to bear the latest information on the subject of nutrition for the benefit of the medical profession and the public as a whole. The practical lesson, of experience is that this is not. very important for the middle and upper classes where there is a varied diet, but for the wage-earning classes, where diet is not so varied, it is most important that this modern knowledge as to the sources of health in nutrition should be brought to bear. The Committee have brought out two reports, one on diet in Poor Law children's homes, and the other on the vitamins, where the uninitiated can follow the natural history of these difficult subjects from Vitamin A down to Vitamin D, and even to Vitamin E and its function in promoting the fertility of rabbits.
Let me turn to one or two of the questions which were put to me in the course of the discussion. I shall have answered some in what I have said already. The hon. Member for Denbigh asked what progress was being made with the classification of institutions, and in particular the transfer of hospitals from Poor Law conditions to the new status of the general purposes hospital. That is a problem which cannot, possibly be dealt with effectively in a short time. It must take time, and in particular necessitates a general survey of accommodation before action can be taken. But I can say that the progress has been good and certainly satisfactory, particularly in London. Sixty-eight institutions have been appropriated for special purposes, that. is, from general Poor Law purposes to special purposes following on a scheme of classification, according to our last report. Since that report, 11 more have been appropriated.
There is nothing to complain of in the rate of progress there.
7.0 p.m.
Let me state my experience of the extraordinarily beneficial effect of the transfer from Poor Law status to general public status in the case of these hospitals. It is acting as a remarkable stimulus upon the institutions, since it makes them, as it were, equals of the greatest and most famous hospitals in the land. I find something beautiful in the new courage, the new enterprise which this sense of full status has given to these institutions. It is a matter in which we can all take pride that the ranks of those famous institutions, whose names are so well known to us, are now being joined by hospitals all over the country. Let me say a word as to the co-ordination between the old voluntary hospitals and the new public general hospitals, about which I was asked by several hon. Members. It is the policy of the Ministry of Health to co-ordinate that co-operation between voluntary and public hospitals in every possible way. The necessity of the voluntary hospitals as a part of our national hospital scheme is, of course, recognised as an essential part of the structure. Both the voluntary hospitals and public hospitals have their own useful fields of activity. I know of no sense of hostility or antagonism between them and, indeed, there is no reason why there should be. The only rivalry is as to which can treat their patients best. As regards co-ordination of their functions. That is the task of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health must see that the two divisions in the hospital structure shall each pay due regard to the opportunities and possibilities of the other and that each shall be duly fitted into the structure.
The hon. Member for Denbigh asked me how the area review was proceeding, the review of boundaries. It is proceeding as fast as the difficulties will allow. There are of course great difficulties, because the idea is so novel. We have to reconcile old traditions, old prejudices, and in some cases old antipathies in order to carry out arrangements desirable in the interests of economy and efficiency in the modern world. On the whole, progress has been satisfactory. Nine reviews have been completed and four more inquiries have been held which will lead to a decision very shortly. In addition to those
13, 15 others are in course of being arranged and, as regards some others, it is necessary to give those extensions of time which the Act contemplated would be necessary. The progress is considered to have been satisfactory upon the whole. The hon. Member for Denbigh asked me how many exclusive declarations have been made since the last report. It is the policy of the Ministry of Health to encourage making such declarations where it is possible in order to complete the process of segregation of activity which is the primary object of the Local Government Act. Here, again, a careful survey of all the services necessary was made, and in many cases a survey of the institutions must proceed to a fairly complete stage before a declaration can be made. Therefore, we shall not expect many declarations just yet. The number made last year was five.
I was asked some questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) in regard to the working of the formula. So far the formula has worked with surprising smoothness. I say "surprising", because anyone acquainted with that marvellous product of the human mind could not imagine anything that would suggest more complexity of administration. It is, however, related to the practical life as well as to the theoretical life, and it has been found in practice to work out without difficulty so far. As to the question of registrars, about which he asked, schemes of reorganisation were due to be submitted by this month. They are very complicated schemes and postponements, for which provision is made in the Act, have had to be given in most cases to allow consideration to be given to the schemes. Three or four schemes are, however, actually in operation. The power to increase the schemes has not yet been considered. As to the question in respect of the co-option of guardians, I would refer him to pages 195 and 196 of the last Report of the Ministry of Health, where he will find an analysis of the situation in respect of the co-opted members of guardians committees.
Finally, the hon. Member for Fulham East (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) asked me a question as to the present situation in regard to the post-graduate school. That is a typical instance of how the voluntary hospitals and the public
hospitals can discharge complementary functions in the whole scheme of hospital accommodation and medical education. I am glad to say the postgraduate school has now actually come to birth, and it is a birth which we believe to be of very great promise for the future of medical science, medical education, and the health of the people. It has come to birth at the London County Council Hospital at Hammersmith. It will be, therefore, a school in connection with a public general hospital, the only one of the kind. The present stage of its evolution is this: The charter has been granted and the governing body set up. At present the actual organisation of the school and a scheme for the provision of buildings for the school are being worked out. That stage is being gone through now. The hon. Member will see things are in train, and before very long, we hope to see this school with all its promise for the future, with all its promise for the co-ordination and fulfilment of medical knowledge, an established fact.
I believe I have dealt with all the matters raised in the course of this Debate, and have given the House ground for dismissing whatever fears may have been caused to them by the criticisms of the official Opposition by showing that there is no disregard of essential public health services at the present time. On those interesting questions raised by the opener of the Debate, I believe I have been able to show the House that the high hopes which were formed of the Local Government Act at the time of its introduction are now from the experience of administrators being brought into actual fruition.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In view of the full explanation of my right hon. Friend, with the permission of the Seconder, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBER: Object!

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I regret that the Minister was not given an opportunity to follow all the speakers on this side of the House who were prepared to take part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by humorously twitting the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on his alleged conversion to the Act of
1929. He did scant justice to the right hon. Gentleman. When the time comes to assess the errors and the rectitude of my right hon. Friend, it will be found that he has been most often on the side of the angels arid has been a leader in the march towards happier and healthier social conditions. Like other apostles he has lived among the people, he has challenged authority and he has been to prison. He has gained experience from contact with his fellow-men and is here an example of the vitality and health which he desires other people to enjoy.
I wish to comment on one or two points made by the Minister himself. He claimed that there had been an increase in the number of child welfare centres. We do not grudge him whatever credit is due, but really the figures, as they were given to us, are not so satisfactory as they appear at first. sight. An increase of 108 in 3,000 is just over 3 per cent., and is not a very great acceleration having regard to the importance of this work. As to maternal mortality, I do not blame the present Minister and those responsible for this very difficult matter. This is the most perplexing obstacle to modern science that this country has now. Strangely enough, in this roost highly-civilised country, with our medical science at its highest point of efficiency, this disease is more prevalent than in countries medically and scientifically much more backward.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for the study of nutrition. This, it is said, is a modern science which does not concern the middle and upper classes, who always have a variety of food, but is very important for the working people whose means are more limited and whose range of diet consequently more restricted. I hope no one will take offence when I say that we are a little tired of that sort of comment. We represent the working people, and we know that they are not getting the quality of food that they require. One gets a little tired of hearing about the need for more knowledge, more science, more study for the working people. Why not try them with more food, with a little more play and with wholesome food? The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) and the Mover of the Amendment know quite well that if a
better standard of life were maintained the standard of health would be considerably improved in a very short time. But they come here in no mood to criticise or to condemn. They came here to-day with congratulations for the Ministry and for the profession which they adorn. It occurred to me that they were reversing the old phrase which we have heard so often, and were praising with faint damns. The Minister was not a bit disturbed by anything that was said by either of them, and no one minds what was said by the two hon. Gentlemen representing the medical profession. They have not given us the benefit of their medical knowledge. They know we are not doing anything like the work we should do about preventible disease. After all, it is much better to prevent disease than to try to cure it.
This Debate has centred around organisation and inquiries and research. We have heard a great deal about the rival merits of voluntary and municipal hospitals, about organisation and about medical services. It sounded to me like the old-time recommendations of poulticing, binding and wrapping up, and bloodletting, which were the stock recommendations of the medical profession a generation or two ago. When will the doctors in this House and in the country give us a clear lead? Why not get down to the cause of disease, bad housing? An hon. Member referred to the development of a housing estate in the county he represents, and I am glad he did call attention to it. It is not the only case, and I hope his words will be heard out-side this House, because thousands of jerry-built houses are being erected. Then there is also the question of existing houses—old houses, condemned houses, dark, leaky houses, houses with bad floors and houses with imperfect chimneys, houses in which it is a punishment to live. There are thousands of such houses. Speaking personally, I would much prefer to go to a clean, dry, prison cell for 12 months than endure the housing conditions which I see in some parts of the country. These bad houses should be done away with, the slums should be cleared away, and new houses built. That will make for a sturdier race. Tit rural constituencies there are school buildings in which it is a punishment for the children to have to
remain for four or five hours a day for five days a week. Children there acquire the seeds of diseases and illnesses which affect them for the remainder of their lives.
Children also suffer from poor and insufficient food. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) gave figures the other day to show the disparity in height and weight between children living in depressed industrial areas and those under happier conditions. At 12 years of age there was a difference of two inches in height and of seven or eight lbs. in weight, and a difference also in vitality and energy. I do not think it, matters very much how many inches a man has when he has finished growing, but it does matter very much if his lack of inches is clue to under-feeding having sapped the body of its vitality. It is a crime that young people should be denied the chance of growing up strong and healthy and be condemned to a life of semi-invalidity, a life of physical inefficiency because of lack of sufficient food. There are ample statistics to show the prevalence of rheumatism, and while no one will say that, rheumatism can be traced to any one cause it is known to be due to improper food and improper conditions of life, and to be more widespread where conditions are bad. Chest troubles are widely prevalent in this country, partly on account of the climate, but mainly because of under-feeding and lack of care in the years of childhood. Preventible measures ought to he the subject of special addresses for the instruction of Members by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, who knows so much about this subject but is so unwilling to give the information which the House requires. Nothing gives me greater joy than to see schoolchildren nowadays, because of the change in the methods of instruction, the change in the relations between teachers and children, and the improvement in school buildings. Everything is so much better now than in the days when I went to school. But we can do still more to improve the conditions of children, which will lead to happier manhood and womanhood.
I come now to a subject which I have sought to discuss in this House. I am not sure whether it is in order to-night, hut I would like the Parliamentary
Secretary to listen to me. The subject is the widespread prevalence of industrial disease. I live in a part of the country where there is a greater variety of industries than can be found, possibly, anywhere else in the world, in a similar area. Those industries include coal mining, steel manufacture, tinplate works, spelter and lead and copper smelting; and there are railway works and docks, and pitch and fuel making industries. I would like to know that the children who have been given a good start in life under conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Health will not, when they go into industry, be subjected to unhealthy conditions.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Office, and not the Minister of Health, is responsible for industrial disease.

Mr. GRENFELL: I agree, but the Minister did make reference to inquiries into the incidence of cancer, tuberculosis, cerebrospinal meningitis, and other diseases, and the Ministry, in its coordination of medical services and medical research, might make inquiries into this subject. I believe a large number of those engaged in these industries become a burden on national health insurance and on other public services on account of the circumstances connected with their employment. Is it not possible for an inquiry to be made into the incidence of cancer in industrial districts to see whether or not there is any connection between the conditions in certain industries and the other conditions which give rise to cancer? It might afford an important clue. I know it is very often a subject of amusement, but there are people who believe that the presence of petrol fumes in the air is responsible for cancer, and others who believe that the use of tar to spray roads is responsible for cancer. If there is any doubt as to the effect of tar and petrol fumes, why not make an examination, perhaps jointly with the Home Office, to see whether they have any connection with the cancer which is known to be incidental to fuel making and one or two other occupations. We have our responsibilities to the people who sent us here, and there is no more important responsibility than looking after the health of the nation. I am not satisfied that we are doing as much as we might do. The Minister ought to take
his responsibilities more seriously, and not be lulled into satisfaction by speeches like those of the two hon. Members who spoke first in the Debate. There is ground for commendation, but, there is also ground for criticism, and I hope the Minister will meet us on this ground, not be content with small accelerations in the services, with small improvements here and there, but go on to a thorough overhaul of our medical system in order to secure the utmost efficiency.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would like to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). No such lighthearted view of the problem is taken by the Minister as he would scorn to suggest in his last few sentences. If the hon. Member will study the last report, that for 1930, issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health, he will find, on page 105, a most valuable section dealing with the problem of cancer, and on page 123 he will find a section dealing with rheumatic diseases. So far from being lax in this matter, the Ministry is thoroughly alive to the need for research as well as for action in connection with these diseases. As to his desire to place a halo round the head of his own leader, of course we have no objection to that.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

HOUSING.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: This being my maiden speech, I am asking the House for very great consideration. I wish to call attention to the very serious question of housing. I wonder, sometimes, whether people generally realise the magnitude of this question. When the War ceased there were many estimates of the number of houses required. I hope to be able to make a short survey of the housing situation. In doing so, I must take the House back to 1910, the year in which the taxation of Land Values was introduced, and here we find the first factor which assisted in bringing about the present housing shortage. The War followed, and we had four years of DO building except for war purposes. The
Committee set up by the Government at that time known as the Advisory Housing Panel suggested that there was a shortage of 400,000 houses. While I was waiting for demobilisation I wrote a review on the housing situation, and it might interest the House to learn what by the end of 1919 was my estimate of the shortage of houses in this country. My estimate was divided into six sections. First of all, I dealt with the smallest type of house which we understand as being under £20 rental value pre-War. I estimated that by the end of 1919 there would be a shortage of 500,000 houses. The second section was houses of a rental value of £20 to £40, and of these I estimated a shortage of 125,000. The third section consisted of houses of a rental value of £40 and under £80, and for this section I estimated a shortage of 25,000.
I went a little further, and in my next section I dealt with the requirements to provide for agricultural needs. At that time, I anticipated that under the policy of the Government for dealing with agriculture there would be a large increase in the agricultural population, and I estimated 390,000 houses for that section. My next section dealt with insanitary dwellings, and there I estimated for 400,000 houses. At this time there was a very considerable number of our population living in over-crowded conditions, and to provide for these I estimated that 600,000 houses would be required. All these sections brought the total of my estimate to no less than 2,040,000 houses, and that was the position, in my opinion, at the end of 1919.
We know that building did not start very rapidly, and I propose to bring my estimate up to the end of 1931, so that we may have a complete estimate of requirements, and then I will compare that with what has been done since the War. According to the census of 1921 and 1931, the growth of population requires approximately 50,000 houses per annum. Over the period under review there has been little or nothing done to remove slum properties. We have approximately 9,000,000 houses in this country, and the life of them, generally speaking, is 100 years. There are a certain number which have a longer life, but I have put in my estimate that slum clearances require no less than 80,000 houses. In that way I
get a grand total to the end of 1931 of no less than 3,600,000 houses. The Government have done very substantial work, and they have given considerable assistance not only to local authorities but also to private enterprse. Over this period under review the number of houses which have been supplied is approximately 1,750,000, leaving still 1,800,000 houses short.
I do not wish these figures to mislead the House, and I may point out that they are based on the assumption that agriculture will respond to the new policy initiated recently by the Government, and in that connection it is interesting to note that 100 years ago the agricultural workers numbered nearly 2,000,000, while to-day they are under 1,000,000. I assume that the agricultural industry is going to respond to this new policy, and should it do so a large number of houses will be required in the rural districts. I also assume that slum clearances will be treated courageously and scientifically. My further assumption in order to justify this huge total is that deflation will stop and wages will rise, because housing is a wage question. To substantiate my argument it is interesting to note that when the War started the previous census showed that there were 3,000,000 people living in overcrowded conditions, but at the same time as people were living under these conditions, there were 275,000 houses unoccupied. Why should we have so many people living in over-crowded conditions, and at the same time have so ninny unoccupied houses? I have already said that housing is a wage question. The War started, and we had a large increase in the volume of currency put into circulation. What was the result? Within a very short time those unoccupied houses became occupied, and ever since there has been a shortage, and over-crowding has arisen through different circumstances.
I will explain my method of dealing with the slums. I assume for the purpose of my explanation that reconditioning is not to be a factor in dealing with slum property. I have already stated that the life of property, generally speaking, is about 100 years, therefore I make an allowance for the 80,000 houses required every year to replace slum property. That. is a very large number of houses, quite apart from the number required for housing the
increase in the normal working population. Are we going to close our eyes to the necessity of dealing with this problem as it should be dealt with? There has recently been issued by the local authorities a circular showing the number of insanitary dwellings. I suggest that the report of these local authorities is simply touching the fringe of the question, and is in no way an attempt to deal with the problem as, in my opinion, it should be dealt with.
I have an idea as to how this difficulty may be avoided in the future. The present practice of local authorities is to approve of plans for an indefinite period, and I suggest that local authorities should only license plans for the erection of houses instead of giving an indefinite approval. I would limit the licence to a period of 80 years, and, if the conditions at the end of 80 years were good, I would extend that licence to periods of 10 years, so that property owners would know what was to be the maturity date for that particular area. By that means I feel that we should keep better control over the slum situation.
There is another factor to bear in mind. There is a tendency for houses to be kept in better condition than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and that is due, in my opinion, to more enlightened local government. At the present time local authorities call upon owners to do many things which years ago were never thought of, arid that has a tendency to extend the life of property. I do not wish to mislead the House as to the housing requirements, and therefore I will leave out of my calculations the provision for prosperity in agriculture and the scientific treatment of slum areas. By leaving those two items out I come down to the net requirements of housing to-day, which I put at 500,000 houses. That is a very large number compared with what has been done in the past. I would like to ask: Are we building the type of houses which is required? I submit that we are building houses far in excess of the requirements of the people, and of the ability of the people to pay the rents necessary to maintain them.
It cannot be denied that the Government have done a great deal towards helping the situation, but after all, private enterprise has done a great deal
more, and of the houses built since the War no less than two-thirds are the production of private enterprise. Not only have the Government assisted in building too many houses of the wrong type, but no houses at all have been built for the lowest-paid workers. During the last two years the type of house which has been built has been produced in excess of requirements. What has been happening? I want this to be a warning to local authorities. They have induced tenants to occupy houses the rents of which they are not capable of paying with the result that the arrears have accumulated. They stand to-day at a very high figure in some districts in particular. Recently the Ministry of Health have issued a circular calling upon local authorities to build a smaller type of house. If those houses are erected, what is going to be the result? A large number of the people who have been put into the houses erected in the past will drift out of them into the smaller and lower rented houses. I can see that in the near future local authorities will find themselves with a very large number of houses for which they are unable to find occupants. Should that situation arise, there will be an additional burden put upon the ratepayers generally.
The type of house which the Ministry of Health suggested should be erected has a floor area of 760 square feet, and is let at an inclusive rental of 10s. But in addition to that 10s. there will have to be a substantial weekly allowance from the general public funds, because the local authorities could not erect a three-bedroomed house to let at 10s. a week inclusive economically. That type of house is too large. I suggest that more attention be paid to two-bedroomed houses. There are thousands and thousands of newly married couples who desire to occupy houses of this description. Such a house can be built at a figure which would enable the majority of the lowest paid workers to pay an economic rent. My warning to local authorities is that they should pay some consideration to the possibilities which affect houses. There is the emigration situation. In 1913 the net outward emigration was over 200,000. In 1927 it was 75,000. In 1931 there was an inward balance of 85,000. I am afraid that this emigration problem is likely to create a misleading situation regarding the growth of popula-
tion. Should it be that our Dominions are going to open the door to emigrants as wide as it was in 1913, we may possibly find that there will be a big outward flow, probably on a par with what was the position previous to the War, and it may be that in this we shall find another factor which is going to be responsible for putting a heavy additional burden upon the ratepayers of this country.
It is surprising how differently local authorities view local housing requirements. I will quote Manchester as an example. Recently Manchester issued a slum clearance order which affects something like 1,000 houses. Of that total there are only 25 to 30 per cent. which you can honestly call insanitary property. Under the 1930 Housing Act the Manchester Corporation has that power. What does Manchester propose to do? In place of those houses it proposes to erect houses seven or eight miles away on what is called the Withenshaw Estate. Recently the housing committee of the Manchester Corporation had a meeting, and there was a proposal put forward to build 500 houses to let at 10s. a week in accordance with the wishes of the Ministry of Health. The result of that discussion of the horsing committee was that they should not build 500 houses at 10s., but that they should go on building the type of houses I have already indicated, which is already over-supplied, and particularly so in Manchester and district. It is quite possible that the poor people who are to be turned out of the slum clearance area will have no accommodation at all, and overcrowding will be even worse than it is to-day.
There is another factor. The people who are living in the thousand houses affected by the clearance order are people who work at the docks, at the fish market, the fruit market and many of the factories which are almost in the centre of Manchester. Where are they going to live? Are you going to take people who find it necessary to live as near as possible to their means of livelihood, seven or eight miles away? There is a great deal. of indiscretion exercised by local authorities in deciding their housing programme. We in this House have a right to demand that more consideration should be shown, especially when we are authorising such huge expenditure. Last year
we authorised the payment out of public funds of over £11,000,000, and these moneys are going towards the upkeep and maintenance of the houses, and to provide for the difference between the rentals paid and the cost of the houses. We should have greater control. But, quite apart from the £11,000,000 which the Exchequer provides, there are many millions provided by the ratepayers directly. This will go on for something like 60 years. Therefore I feel justified in saying that there is not sufficient discretion shown in making up the housing plans of local authorities.
There is another factor that I wish to mention, and that is the continuance of the Rent Restrictions Acts. If ever there was an Act of Parliament which made a very large part of the population absolutely immobile, it was the Rent Restriction Act. It is creating a lot of disadvantages. A man may be living as a statutory tenant and may not be desirous of losing his statutory status in the north of London. Probably he works on the Surrey side of the Thames, and he has all that distance to cover. He could get a house probably in the area in which ho is working, but if he did so he would lose his statutory status, and the benefit of an uneconomic rent which is fixed by the Rent Restrictions Acts. The continuance of that Act is having an effect far wider than many hon. Members realise. The sooner the Act is removed the better. The probabilities are that when it is removed many local authorities will find that, owing to this immobility of a large part of the population, they have gone on with their housing programme, but the removal of the Act will cause the people to live closer to their employment, and there will he certain local authorities with an over-supply of houses of different types.
8.0 p.m.
There is a further and new factor to be taken into consideration. We are threatened with the breaking of the Treaty with Ireland. I understand that there are something like 400,000 southern Irishmen in this country. If the Treaty is broken these men become foreigners. We are not desirous of having such a large percentage of foreigners in this country. Are we going to house these people? Many of these people will go back to their own country, but at the moment they are taken into consideration
in estimating the housing requirements of this country. There is a further point to which it is desirable and necessary to refer, and that is that local authorities are becoming very powerful landlords. In my own opinion it is an extremely dangerous situation. Some local authorities have power to trade, and it is possible, under the bureaucratic power of Socialism, that the great landlord of the local authority might make it a condition of tenancy that tenants buy their milk, their meat, or their building materials from the local authority. We have recently had a discussion in this House of a Kettering Gas Bill. Why? For the reason I have referred to—the power of the great local landlord. There they insisted upon the people in the Kettering houses using electricity. This House very rightly said, "No, you tenants have the choice of gas or electricity, or both." But still these possibilities may arise. There is a certain corporation, Birmingham, which has a savings bank. Birmingham may make it a condition of tenancy that corporation tenants shall put their small savings in the corporation bank.
For these several reasons, I think that the time has come when the local authorities should not be permitted to own houses, and that all those properties now held by local authorities should go under the control of public utility societies. One goes into districts and finds evidence of these great local, powerful landlords using their housing programme as a political machine. I have instances of a large estate being tenanted in the interests of the Conservative party, and I have an instance in another town of a big housing estate being used in the interests of the Socialist party, therefore I feel that this House should be warned of the danger of local authorities becoming such powerful landlords. In dealing with housing, there is the very important factor of the relation of housing to labour turnover to consider. Owing to the immobility of labour arising out of the Rent Restrictions Acts, labour turnover is affected by the fact that men and women have to live in unsuitable and insanitary houses, and there is the distance from their work, which creates
inefficiency. If people arrive at their work after 20 minutes' or half an hour's journey, they cannot be as efficient for their day's work as those who live nearer to their place of employment.
There is also the question of transport in relation to housing, and there again the Rent Restrictions Acts are putting a very great strain upon the transport of this country. It is helping to increase the cost of living of the people and creating a false impression as to the congestion of traffic in certain areas, which may cause a local authority to proceed with a street widening programme at a very heavy cost to the ratepayers, due entirely to the procedure and programme of local authorities, which are throttled owing to the existence of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I should like to see the local authorities doing no more building. Now that private enterprise can carry out the entire programme, and particularly in relation to the smaller type of house, I can see no objection to the Government guaranteeing the building societies to the extent of the difference between the advance made by the society say, up to 95 or. 97½, per cent., and the amount realised in case of default.
I believe that with the building society machinery, which is so highly developed and so efficient, and with the co-operation of the Government, it would be possible, in the case of houses selling freely up to £600, to arrange a programme which would free local authorities almost entirely from having to build houses and would provide a house at a rental which the people were able to pay. It would be infinitely less costly to the ratepayers and taxpayers. The 10s. house of the Ministry of Health will call for a heavy charge on the public funds, and this co-operation would be to the benefit of all parties concerned. You may say, "Why should the Government give their guarantee? Are we justified in taking that risk?" What is the risk? If you take a long period of the building society movement, it is surprising to find that the defalcations are only approximately a third of 1 per cent., based on the total mortgage capital, which is over £350,000,000, or to put it in another way, it is only a half of 1 per cent. based on the total number
Of mortgages; so that, with that record and experience, it does not seem that the Government would be running any material risk. It must be infinitesimal, having regard to the huge volume of business which would be done.
What would be the benefits? In the first place, you would be mobilising private capital; in the second place, you would be mobilising the earnings of the people; and, next, you would be assisting the building industry. There are thousands of houses which could be built under this scheme, and as a result you would help to reduce the figure of more than 300,000 people who are now unemployed in the building trade. What is more important still, I think, is that to give these people the opportunity of ownership will impress upon their minds the real duties of citizenship. It is remarkable, as a result of the building society movement generally, how people have drifted from Socialism as soon as they have realised and appreciated the benefits of true citizenship, through the ownership of houses. I feel that I can suggest to this House, without any hesitation at all, that the closest co-operation between the building societies and the Government would be extremely beneficial. They would have the whole of the building societies throughout the country behind them, and a long period, say, of 30 years for repayment could be provided, so that the cost to the occupier need not exceed quite a nominal rent.
May I give a few figures, because I have advocated that more attention should be paid to the two-bedroom type of home? Take, say, a house with 600 super-feet area. That house to-day can be built for £250, plus the land, say, £20, and roads and sewers £15, making a total of £285. Under a plan of co-operation between the building societies and the Government, that house could be let inclusive of rates and taxes at 9s.4½d per week, and there are many thousands of people who are wanting this type of house. That would be the lowest rented house which would have been built since the War, but it is possible, providing that the machinery which exists on both sides to-day—that is, the Government and the building societies—was brought closer together.
There is one very important factor which has a bearing on the cost of hous-
ing, and that is the monetary policy. I think the Government should pay attention to it and, as soon as possible, let us know what their future monetary policy is going to be, because we must have cheap money, not only for industry, but for housing, and we cannot hope to get to that position unless the Government will decide as soon as possible and let us know that their monetary policy is going to be one thing or the other. If we could have a programme from the Government as to what our monetary policy is going to be, it would be possible for many of the loans raised by local authorities at high rates—some as high as 6½ per cent.—to be refloated on a basis, I hope, under the monetary policy which I have at the back of icy mind, on which they could borrow money at as low as 3 or 3½ per cent. Therefore, I submit to the Government that this housing situation, which is so vital to many of the people of this country, should receive, not what I call the daily routine work of the Ministry, but something more practical. Let it have more sympathy from those who are responsible for its conduct.

Mr. SELLEY: I must apologise to the House for the fact, that like the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), I am making a maiden speech. My hon. Friend has dealt so exhaustively with the subject that I do not propose to go over the whole field but I may inform the House that I have some acquaintance with the London problem. I think I should be the first to recognise that the housing problem is not solved at the present moment and it is certainly not solved for the County of London. I would like to make another observation far the benefit of the hon. Members in front of me and that is that a good many particularly on the Socialist side, have an idea that the solution of the housing problem depends on who builds the houses, who owns them, and under what conditions they are built; in other words, it is a good solution of the housing problem provided the houses are all built by a municipality and all done strictly tinder trade union conditions. With the latter point, I should entirely agree, but with the former I should disagree to the extent of saying that, in my opinion, the solution of the housing problem depends neither on who builds the house, nor on
the rent of the house; the solution of the housing problem is, houses and more houses.
May I say that one or two of the difficulties and confusion of thought that arise in the minds of many people in dealing with housing arise from the fact that directly you talk about housing they have an idea that you are dealing with horrible slums and horrible people and that you are dealing with a class of people that really you approach with very great difficulty. My view of the housing problem is that it is something far more than the slums. We have quite good and respectable tenants living in slums who can pay an economic rent. It is largely the difficulty of Ending a place to which they can move. I think it has been said that in the Act of 1930 we were trying to deal with a class of people which I and many others who have studied the problem are willing to admit we have not dealt with yet. I am talking particularly of the labouring man. The mechanic in most cases we are able to accept as a municipal tenant because he can pay the municipal rent, but we very often find also the unfortunate labourer, whose disability arises from two causes, first, that he may have and has, as we all know, a lower earning capacity and, secondly, it may be, that he has a larger family. Those two possibilities prevent the municipalities at the present moment from accommodating that lowly paid workman. I have seen it happen frequently and repeatedly, and am trying to find out whether there is a way by which we can bridge the gap.
Speaking particularly of London, and of our cottage estates, we are gradually getting down to a low cost of building, and I think it would be fair to say that the average cost of producing a house outside the London area is about £70 per room, or £350 for a five-roomed cottage. The difficulty, however, is that, directly you try to provide housing accommodation in the inner ring of London, in a block dwelling, you find that the cost works out at £160 per room instead of £70. The Minister, in his White Paper suggests that, the cost of building having fallen, we might try to base our rents on the cost of building production, but, quite frankly, I think that, so far as inner London is concerned, that is impossible.
There is another class of people who have to be housed, namely, the "difficult" tenant. The Act of 1930 sets out a form of public assistance in regard to rents, and it has been laid down that that assistance shall be given to those who need it, but only for so long as they need it. I suggest to the House, however, that no local authority has ever yet been found to put that into operation —at any rate that is the case so far as the London County Council is concerned —unless the housing of that class of person is turned over to the public assistance committee. I see no other way of doing it but to make the inquiry through the public assistance committee.
There is yet another very large section of people in London, to house whom a real effort is being made by public utility societies, and whom, for want of a better term, I may describe as the submerged class. There are undertakings such as that of Father Jellico in North St. Pan-cras, and that of Prebendary Carlile, of the Church Army. They are very much better able than a public authority to select the most deserving cases, and here I should like to make a suggestion. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept it, but I have worked for many years with good Christian, Church folks who are anxious to do something for this very distressed and depressed class of people, and I know of no better way in which they could use their money than by subscribing liberally to these great public utility societies, who, if I may say so, do not select their people on the Nosey Parker system, but are understanding people who go among those who have been submerged, perhaps through economic causes, or, perhaps, partly the fault of one side or the other, but who at any rate need rescuing, because they have families who may be brought up to a proper level of citizenship.
I believe there is so much public spirit in this country to-day that it would be possible to raise quite a lot of money by suggesting, through the Ministry of Health, to people of good intentions, that, instead of a capital levy, they might lend their money to the country free of interest for a number of years, provided that the capital were secured to those who come after them free of Death Duties or under some such conditions. I have
not worked out this suggestion; it may be revolutionary, or it may be Socialistic, but it might be possible to find a means of bridging the gap for the money market. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton spoke of 3½ per cent., bun money is being raised to-day to my knowledge at 2½ per cent. by these philanthropic societies. I would, however, go further, and make an appeal to the Christian spirit of this great country for the loan of money for, say, 20 years, to see if we could clear up some of these horrible wrecks. Everybody in this House desires to take them out of the hovels in which they are and place them in a decent way of living and lead them back into self-respecting and decent citizenship. I am alluding, and I know my hon. Friends on the Labour benches will not misunderstand me, to the fallen and the derelict whom we who know London and the places where they exist are anxious should be housed, because their children will be future citizens of this great Empire.
Reference has been made to the fact that the carrying of this great burden of property by municipalities may become a political menace, and I do not think that any of us have our eyes closed to that possibility. A time may come, even sooner than we expect, when our municipalities may be relieved both of the selection of tenants and of the management of these great properties, by putting them into the hands of a sort of trust that would be above the elected bodies. We should in that way make sure that they had the interest of the country at heart, and were not looking for political opportunities or political advantage.

Mr. TINKER: I am sure that the House will agree with me in saying how pleased we were to listen to the two maiden speeches which have just been delivered. The two hon. Members occupy seats which were lately occupied by two of my colleagues, and we regret that fact, but at the same time we cannot get away from the feeling that both of them have given us very able speeches on a subject that is of very great importance. Although we may not agree exactly with the views which they have put forward, we are very pleased that they have had the opportunity of bringing their views before the House. To those of us who have lived under the conditions which
they have described the recollection comes very vividly to our minds. Most Members who represent working-class constituencies in this House have gone through all the stages of which the two hon. Members have spoken, and I do not know of anything that can create more bitter feelings in the minds of working-class people than bad housing conditions. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Health will give close attention to what has been said to-night, and will see if something can be done in the matter.
The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) dealt with the problem of London, and I have here some figures relating to London which I think are typical of other parts of the country also, though London, being one of the main centres, is well worth describing. I am told that 100,000 persons are living in 30,000 basements in London. Such conditions cannot be pleasant for them. I am told, also, and I do not think anyone will dispute it, that in London there are at least 1,000,000 people living under slum conditions. That is a big question for any right-thinking body of men, and especially legislators. The Bishop of London's Housing Committee recently issued, to the members of the London Diocesan Conference, a statement which contained these words:
Deplorably little has been done for the London slum dweller with whom this Committee is, concerned, or to cope with London overcrowding.
The Bishop of London, therefore, has been paying attention to this matter, but I would say to the Church people that, while it is all very well to speak on a, matter like this, I should like to see them go more deeply into it, and try to get something done. Reports have been made of housing surveys in Chelsea, Shoreditch, Somers Town, Southwark, and other districts, by two very capable and gifted women, Mrs. Irene Barclay, B.A., and Miss Evelyn Perry, and I would like to quote an extract from the Southwark report which was issued about 1930:
Throughout whole tracts of the borough the Housing Acts are virtually inoperative and the poverty, unemployment, low and irregular wages, so much in evidence, conspire to render the task of the borough council impossible of effective fulfilment unless and until public opinion accepts, not wily in theory but in practice, the position that houses must be built with public money and let at economic rents, the deficit being defrayed either by the rates or by taxes.
Unless this is taken over and dealt with by the public, there will be no solution of the housing problem. The hon. Member who opened this discussion spoke of building two-bedroomed houses. I deplore that. I think there should be fewer two-bedroomed houses. The housing problem is chiefly a working-class problem. We want future citizens for carrying on the race, and a working-class household usually has three, four or more children. Two-bedroomed houses do not give the kind of living that we want for our people. When a child gets to a certain age, decent parents want to separate the sexes. Everyone who belongs to a working-class home knows that this has been one of the troubles of the parents. I can speak from my own experience as one of 10 children. The difficulty we were faced with was trying to get sufficient rooms to separate the sexes.

Mr. SELLEY: I think the idea of the two-bedroomed dwellings is not so much to put families into them as to relieve couples from occupying rooms which might be occupied by families. It is economy of space and not to cause any overcrowding of families into two rooms. That is not my idea or that of my friends.

Mr. TINKER: I am glad to hear that, and I can now see the hon. Member's point. As we are both agreed on that, I will not pursue it. I am faced with the same difficulty in my constituency as the hon. Member. It is rather curious that I received a letter to-day from a constituent asking me if T could do anything to get him a house. He has two boys, aged 14 and 16½, who have to sleep downstairs on a sofa. There is a family of 16 in a two-bedroomed house. He gets desperate and says if we cannot do something he will have to do something himself, and he asks if I would advise him to write to the Minister of Health. This is only an instance of what is happening all over the country, and it impresses upon the House of Commons, whose prime duty it is to attend to the wants of poor people, to see if something cannot be done with this pressing problem.
The Amendment on the Paper speaks of the need of houses, and goes on to say that the authorities could make better use of the money that is granted. I
have not heard any complaint about that. I think the difficulty is that there is not enough money to deal with the problem. We are evidently not keeping up with the shortage. What can be done to press forward with more houses. I believe environment is one of the prime factors in the moulding of one's life. I believe a person living under slum conditions can develop into a very bad citizen and, conversely, I believe that, put under decent housing conditions, the best possible can be brought out of those people. I have read several reports, among them Wakefield and Manchester, and have followed up the position of people who have been taken from slum dwellings and put on to housing sites. The reports show that in 95 per cent. of the cases, given decent housing conditions, the slum dweller has 'roved himself a decent and likeable citizen. If we would set out to give our people a decent standard of life, I do not know what we could do better than to give them improved housing conditions. Although I do not agree with the wording of the Amendment, I thank the hon. Member and his supporters for giving us an opportunity of dealing with the problem.

8.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel CRUDDAS: I ask the indulgence of the House in rising to address it for the first time. I welcome the decision of the Minister of Health to concentrate on building three-roomed houses at a low rent. There is very considerable dissatisfaction among the lower-paid workers in the North of England. They see four and five-roomed houses built with the subsidy and then.et at rents that they cannot possibly afford. They see the wrong tenants getting into the houses. The housing committee of Newcastle, when asked about this, said they knew that they had the wrong class of tenant sometimes, but their capital expenditure was so enormous that they could not risk having tenant who could not pay the rent. So I welcome the idea of three-roomed houses, because they are the smallest in which a family can live in decency. In the North we have too many two-roomed houses.
Then I would ask the Minister to consider the cutting down of all unnecessary trimmings. I do not want cheap material or cheap labour, but I want to cut out all unnecessary things. I should
like to ask if a big bathroom is worth the money. May I take two classes who wash probably as much as anyone else. The miner takes a tub in front of the fire at home, and in some cases he prefers that to using the pithead bath. The British who live in India never see a big bath unless they are in Bombay or Calcutta. I was there for four years, and we always washed in a large washing-up basin, which made a very efficient bath. A bathroom is not essential—plenty of water and a good supply of hot water, but we can cut out the bathroom in some of these houses. I hope the Minister will overhaul all the plans, because an architect on going over them will get a considerable reduction in cost. Those houses, which would be to rent, would have to be built by the local authorities. Local authorities already have so large a debt that they will not embark upon a building scheme with the enthusiasm they once had, so I suggest that we should do something more to encourage private enterprise. The builder is building houses, but not houses to rent. He builds a house or a group of houses and sells them in order to get the money to enable him to go on building.
We want to attract more capital into the industry. It is a peculiar thing that the better use you make of your capital the less dividend you get in return, and there is really no better use that you can make of it than to put it into building. Therefore, I suggest that the Government should consider the possibility of the remission of Schedule A of Income Tax upon a certain class of houses. Suppose that one were to suggest that upon three-roomed houses built within the next five years to let at a low rent there should be no Schedule A tax for 20 years, upon a house assessed at £20 there would be a gain of £100. I am afraid that hon. Members opposite might not agree. They feel that they may be in office in the next 20 years. They feel that if they were they could not very well cancel an agreement under which a large number of houses had been built. They would not like to give such a large concession to landlords, but there is an easy and an honourable way out of it which would give satisfaction to everybody. They could reduce the rate of Income Tax and then the concession would be smaller. I hope that the Government will consider the possibility of attracting private
capital into this very necessary national work, and I welcome the decision of the Minister to concentrate upon smaller houses.

Mr. PEAT: I do not feel that the discussion upon the question of housing should be allowed to pass without some reference to a very important part of the housing problem, namely, the density problem. At the present time only 12 houses are allowed to be built to the acre in respect of which the Government subsidy is to be paid. I know that the Minister deals very sympathetically with all cases which are brought to his notice, and in which he is in a position to allow a greater density than 12 houses to the acre. I should like to take the opportunity of making an appeal to him not only to take into consideration the reduced rental which it may be possible to charge for the houses if they are built at a greater density than 12 to the acre, but also to take into consideration the surroundings in which the houses are to be built. You very often find, although the extra rental from building more than 12 houses to the acre may not be very much and that therefore a good case cannot be made on that basis, that at the same time one can prove that there are parts available with open spaces which should, in my opinion, very much influence the Minister in allowing schemes for building houses at a greater density than 12 to the acre. In the north of England in which I have the honour to represent a great industrial constituency our greatest and most pressing need is the supply of working-class houses, and we are prepared to go forward with big schemes for supplying those houses in order to get rid of the back-to-back houses and other insanitary dwellings, if we can build more than 12 houses to the acre. It is going to make a tremendous difference to my constituency, and, I dare say, to the north of England generally if we get those concessions when we ask for them from the Minister.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would not have dared to venture into this Debate but for the two speeches which have just been delivered. I rather suspect that if we remain silent the right hon. Gentleman the Minister may be inclined to feel that we agree with the observations which have been made by his two hon. Friends. I am glad to observe that the Parlia-
mentary Secretary, at all events, was not suffering from that delusion. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) has appealed to the Minister to permit local authorities to erect more than 12 houses to the acre.
I have just been reminded that one of the hon. Gentlemen who preceeded me was making his first venture into the Debates of the House, and I think that I shall be expressing the feeling of all Members if I say that he performed his very delicate duty extremely well. Whether we agree or disagree with his contention, he has indicated that he knows something about the subject on which he spoke. We shall look forward to his further interventions with equal interest. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway suggested that with the right hon. Gentleman's consent they would be willing to erect a large number of working class houses if only they could erect more than 12 to the acre. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's Department worked out the figures to a very fine decimal point and that in regard to the average houses, which, when prices were slightly higher, would have cost £500 to build, the net rent for land alone was estimated to be round about 3d. per week. If the hon. Gentleman represents an area where the housing problem is very acute, and where they are said to be bubbling over with excitement and enthusiasm to remove back-to-back houses, and it is 3d. a week or id. a week cost of land which is barring the way, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a lot of enthusiasm in the district. If that seems to be the only obstacle, and if housing conditions are as acute as the hon. Member suggests, the Minister might very well bring pressure to bear upon that authority, and insist upon their providing the houses of which their people are, apparently in need.
The hon. Member who made his maiden speech referred to the mining population, the size of houses required, the provision of pithead baths, and so forth. Knowing something of mining districts, I would say to the hon. Member that, while it was the general rule in the past that a few miners' houses were given the luxury of a bath in the home, to-day the miners are as anxious for a bath in the home as any other section of the com-
munity, and we should regret if the right hon. Gentleman took the step of going back into the dark ages in regard to the provision of houses without baths. It is true that in certain mining areas there was antipathy to pithead baths, but if the hon. Member has observed recent developments he will know that wherever provision has been made for pithead baths the miners are taking advantage of them. Of all the social improvements made in mining districts during the past 20 years, nothing is comparable with pithead baths, where they have been provided. But having made provision for pithead baths so that the miner may leave the dirt at the colliery where he picked it up, what is to become of the wife and family? Are they not to be guaranteed the privilege of a bath, or must they be condemned to the tub before the fire, which was referred to by the hon. Member. The Minister is so well acquainted with the needs of the time that I am sure he would not for one moment consider the advisability of allowing local authorities to erect new houses, with Government subsidy or municipal subsidy, unless they contained the usual bath.
Both the hon. Members suggested that local authorities who were enthusiastic about housing had had their enthusiasm somewhat damped during the past three, four or five years. Particularly does that apply where unemployment has been very acute over that period. While it may have been that the average house with few of the present day amenities could be obtained at a net rent, including rates, of 6s. to 7s. a week, these same authorities are obliged to-day, because houses were erected between 1920 and 1926, to charge a rent varying from 12s. to 14s. a week and, as unemployment has been acute for a very long period, large arrears have accrued, large overdrafts at the bank have accrued, and the local authorities have been obliged to pay a 2d., 3d. or 4d. rate exclusively in interest on overdrafts, due to housing arrears over that period of time. While these circumstances exist, that is no reflection upon the local authorities and no reflection upon their housing enthusiasm or upon their desire to provide better home facilities than was the case 10 years ago. But it does indicate that the right hon.
Gentleman's Department might very well consider how, if possible, they might relieve the present day burdens of those authorities who were enthusiasts eight or 10 years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the unfortunate position of many local authorities. I had the honour of introducing a deputation to the right hon. Gentleman a few months ago, and I know that he would be the first to admit that while it would perhaps be out of the question to make a general, all-round reduction of housing rents under the Addison scheme, something might be done in respect of a large number of houses which were erected over a considerable period of time, where a local authority has responded magnificently to the national call and has had to pay the price for their enthusiasm during those years, because of unemployment, short-time working and destitution on the part of tenants who would gladly pay if they had the money, who relish the idea of residing in a better house, who enjoy the privilege of cultivating their garden, back and front, and enjoying the fresh air facilities in the new houses that. have been erected since the War. If he could find any means whereby those local authorities, particularly in mining areas, could be relieved of some of the arrears that have accrued over a long time, whether by revising the terms of reference given to the rents tribunal in 1921, or by some other means that could be devised by the same department that devised the formula—those who devised the formula of 1929 could devise anything; there is nothing that they cannot do, if the will is there on the part of the Minister and the case has been made out—he would not only help to relieve certain local authorities but he might to some extent stimulate building, which would be a helpful factor in regard to unemployment and in other ways.
We have been told that private enterprise ought to be encouraged and that facilities should be given so that private enterprise can secure ready money with which to build more houses. That is a legitimate transaction. Since local authorities are pretty well driven out of the field for the moment, because of the demand for economy imposed by the Ministry of Health, or certainly encouraged by the Ministry of Health, and because of other factors over which the
Ministry of Health has no control, private enterprise have an open field to erect houses as fast as they like. The problem is not one so much of the Minister encouraging private enterprise, but that private enterprise have the field to themselves and can erect houses as fast as they can sell them. The problem of the lower middle classes, the would-be purchasers of houses, is almost as bad as that of the artisan who is only partially employed. There need be no action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to discourage local authorities and encourage private enterprise, seeing that private enterprise have the field largely to themselves today, and the need for houses is well known. It is because private enterprise know full well that it is only in such places as Bournemouth, Torquay and Blackpool, where those who have retired from the industrial field to a more beneficial atmosphere are willing to buy houses, that it is possible for private enterprise to be really active at this moment.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that while it may be that a few authorities are insisting on powers to build houses, the Department ought to encourage those local authorities who manifest any willingness to build houses. The Department have already conceded in many areas the power to build 16 and even 18 houses per acre, where the local authority were really anxious to get on with the houses. If the local authority mentioned by the hon. Member who spoke last will make such inquiries as are necessary, I think they will find that they require no special powers from the Department who, in the past, have always been willing to respond to the call of a local authority for any contracting down to eight or any expansion up to 18, where the conditions necessitated such a change. We suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should encourage local authorities, wherever he can, to build decent houses, and to remember that, while we may be passing through a crisis at this moment, we ere hopeful that the crisis will come to an end, that the houses, once erected, will not be disposed of in five or 10 years, and that their life will be somewhere about 60 or 100 years. It would be folly on our part, in 1932, to erect any kind of
house which 20 years hence may become a slum and require a further Slum Clearance Act for the purpose of demolishing what we build to-day. The better type of house is producing a better type of citizen. Men, women and children are benefiting from the Housing Act of 1919, and although it may have been costly it has not all been a waste of money. It may have been extravagant at the time but the benefit to health and an improved social outlook will far outweigh the colossal sums that have been expended on these houses under the Addison scheme. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman would do well to follow the good line of his predecessors at the Ministry of Health by helping to maintain a decent standard of house; encourage local authorities to improve rather than depreciate the standard set up in 1929.

Mr. McENTEE: I desire to deal with one or two points mentioned by the hon. Member who opened this discussion. I regret that I did not hear the whole of his speech. I was interested in his remark that local authorities should no longer build houses. It is interesting to consider why they commenced to build houses for the working-classes. They did so because nobody else would build them for people who were needing them at that time, but there is a desire, apparently, to get back to the time when private enterprise can again exploit people who need houses just as it did prior to the War. After the War private enterprise found that it was impossible to build houses which they could let to tenants at a reasonable rent and at the same time make a profit. As a consequence the Government were compelled to assist local authorities to build houses for those who are called the working-classes. Incidentally, it is rather extraordinary that the working-classes in society should always be the people who need assistance from local authorities or the Government. In a well ordered society the working-classes, that is those people who do the work of the nation, would be the last to need any such assistance, but in the strange order of society of to-day it is the people who do no work who can afford to build houses and palaces, and the working people, who do all the work, who are compelled to ask for assistance from local
authorities or the Government if they are to have anything like decent houses in which to live. Local authorities built houses because it became essential in the interests of public health and decency that houses should be built and because private enterprise would no longer build them because they did not pay. If R e were faced with a position in which it did not pay private enterprise to make bread, they would cease to make bread and the people would starve.

Mr. HOWARD: The people would make bread themselves.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: Probably they would, but they could not make it unless they had the wherewithal. My complaint is that people who need houses have not the opportunity to build them themselves. If they had the opportunity and the wherewithal they could do so. I could build a house from the foundations to the top.

Mr. HOWARD: The hon. Member would not be allowed to do so because of trade union regulations.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Member cannot know much about trade unions. I have been a, member of a trade union in the building trade for 40 years and I have learnt something about trade unionism and about the building of houses. My experience in the building trade is that those who remain in it will be occupied all their lives in building fine mansions for other people. People in the building trade are very lucky if they can get a working-class house for themselves. That is a system of society which we cannot avoid, but ultimately I hope the people will wake up to the fact that those who are doing the work are not able to get a decent living themselves and are compelled to ask for a subsidy from the Government in order to enable them to pay a rent to the landlord, who is thus able to make a profit. The Rent Restriction Act was brought into existence solely because of the exploitation of private enterprise. The Government in the earlier period of the War, in the interests of public decency and quietness among the population and in order to prevent riots, passed that Act, and they are compelled now to keep it on the Statute Book still. What would happen
if the Rent Restriction Act were taken off the Statute Book to-day? I am afraid that quietness would not last very long.
I have had some experience of public utility societies, and I have a high regard for the work which they have done in the building of houses. A great deal more could be done and ought to be done by public utility societies in the provision of houses, but the limitations which are placed on them to-day are far too great. For instance, under the Development Act of 1929 "public utility society" is defined in a way which makes the benefit of that Act only possible to statutory public utility societies. Assistance can be given to railway companies, gas companies, electricity companies, dock and harbour boards, and bodies of that kind, but no assistance can be given to public utility societies engaged in building houses. I would ask the Minister when he replies to say if consideration can be given to the extension—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am afraid that the Minister would be out of order if he dealt with that question, as it would involve legislation.

Mr. McENTEE: Perhaps the Minister will give consideration to the point which I have not been allowed to develop on the present occasion but which I hope to develop on some future occasion. What is the real drag on housing? It has been stated that it is trade union conditions. The hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) who has far more experience of building than the Mover of this Motion, will agree with me, I think, that trade union conditions to-day are a necessity in the building trade just as in every other trade. The real drag on the tenant who occupies a council house to-day, is not the trade union, and not the builder, but the moneylender. I do not know if the Mover of the Motion is aware that in the case of a council house built under the Addison Act, 50 per cent. of every shilling goes into the pocket of the person who lent the money. Figures were quoted by the late Mr. Wheatley who was Minister of Health, to show that out of every 9s. paid by the tenant of a council house, 4s. 6d. went in interest. You will not, and you cannot get cheaper
houses unless you cheapen money for the purpose of building.
Very large sums of money are put into the Post Office Savings Bank by small investors who get 2½ per cent. interest. If that money or a large part of it were ear-marked for the purpose of building houses, you could cheapen housing very much. I hope that consideration will be given to this money octopus which is strangling housing and preventing our people from securing decent conditions. Everybody would desire to see our people get out of the slums, but if they are to be brought out of the slums one of the things that will have to be considered is cheap money for house building and I see no reason why part, at any rate, of the huge sum deposited yearly in the Post Office Savings Bank should not be used for that purpose. I suppose that it is used in other ways for Government purposes. The Mover of the Motion has pointed out that as high as 6½ per cent. is still being paid by local authorities who entered into borrowing arrangements during the period after the War. I have heard of one instance where 7 per cent. is being paid and in the case of the authority which I represent, had it not been that some of us were rather more farseeing than others, we would still be paying 7 per cent. for money borrowed at the time of the Addison scheme. Fortunately we were able to make an arrangement by which when money became cheaper we were able to pay off the old loan and re-borrow at a cheaper rate.
I hope that this discussion will have the effect of drawing the Minister's attention to the serious overcrowding of our people at the present time. No doubt he is aware of it but, in drawing his attention to it in this way, we are drawing public attention to it. At the same time I hope that consideration will be given to the fact that the real cause of dear housing is neither trade unionism nor builders; it is not the cost of wages and not even the cost of materials, although that is considerably higher than it need be. The real reason for the high cost of building is the high rate of interest which has to be paid over long periods.

Sir H. YOUNG: This Debate has been distinguished by the three admirable maiden speeches to which we have
listened with so much pleasure from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis), the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley)—who spoke with so much knowledge and with that touch of broad humanity which always illuminates knowledge and makes it available for our purposes—and, finally, from the hon. and gallant Member for Wansbeck (Lieut.-Colonel Cruddas), who spoke in a no less effective manner. The suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Wansbeck with regard to the Income Tax must, I fear, be passed on to a higher authority than myself. I should never venture to rush into that sphere, particularly at this season which may be described as a close season for Ministerial suggestions on the subject of taxation.
The note struck by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and by another hon. Member in this discussion has been that of the relation of the price of money to the high cost of housing, and the suggestion has been made that what is needed for the solution of the housing problem is cheaper money. If what is meant is cheaper money for all purposes and if the proposition is simply that cheaper money would benefit the country, then I quite agree. If it is a question as to what means are to be taken in order to secure cheaper money, that would take me beyond my province. But if the suggestion is that there should be cheaper money for housing alone, that simply means some form of concealed subsidy for housing, and to that I am opposed. If you are to give a subsidy you should give it openly and not wrap it up in the form of a reduction of the rate of interest or something of that sort.
As to the real relation of cheaper money to the housing problem, is it the fact that it is the dearness of money which is holding up the housing supply? I do not believe it. I do not believe for a moment it is that factor which is holding up the housing supply. I believe the holding up of the supply is due very much more to the other factors involved, namely, the high cost of material and the high cost of labour. Before offering some general observations on this question, let me reply to the query put by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat)
regarding the density of houses. It is necessary in the interest of the proper supply of the kind of housing accommodation which is required by a locality, that no rule as to the density of houses should be as a law of the Medes and Persians. It is entirely a question of what is required in the actual circumstances of the locality in question.
I think that the most useful thing I can do in reply to the very interesting Debate to which we have listened is to suggest a few general propositions to the House by way of bringing the housing problem up to date with the most recent information available to His Majesty's advisers at the Ministry of Health, because, after all, that is the useful function which the Ministry can perform in such a question as this. The first fact that we can state is the actual cost to the State of the housing subsidy at the present time. Each house approved for subsidy will incur to the Exchequer a liability of £130, and that will usually incur a consequential liability to the local authority of £65, so that the liability to public funds incurred by each house approved for subsidy is £195. The charge on the Exchequer is equivalent to £7 10s. per year for 40 years. I mention that. fact to show, even with the fall in the cost of housing, how serious is still the financial liability involved in the approval of houses for subsidy, and to warn the House that in the present state of national finance it is not possible to look upon this obligation lightly. When we reflect that already our annual recurring liability in the national budget for housing is no less than £12,750,000, it is a financial obligation which cannot he regarded as trivial in the present economic conditions.
In regard to the supply of houses, let me refer for full information to the informing report on housing conditions made by a departmental committee of the Ministry of Health two years ago. Since the War, the number of houses built has been 1,820,000. The increase in population between 1921 and 1931 was 2,000,000. The result is—and this is the next interesting fact to which I would call the attention of the House—that at the present time over the country as a whole the average number of persons to a house is barely four. That does not show that there is no longer a housing
problem, because there is not an even distribution over every class of house and all over the country. It shows, if you take the country as a whole, that there is no evidence that the country is suffering from a housing shortage. It means that in each proposition made for fresh housing you have to consider whether the area in question is one of the areas that is in need of more housing accommodation. There are many areas which have no need for State effort for providing them with fresh houses. We cannot afford to waste public money in such areas, so it needs the most careful inquiry whether this or that area which makes an application for houses is in need of State subsidy to help them.
We know what the actual policy should be as regards economising in the State resources available for housing and making use of them to the best possible end in the present time of national difficulty. I am deeply conscious that the present is a time when, if you are failing to get the very best possible value out of every pound of the taxpayers' or ratepayers' money that you spend, even for the most important social purposes, you are committing a grave offence against the community. As to the extent to which we are getting value, the most important report to which I have referred will establish that there is no longer any need for a great State effort to provide the kind of housing which for the most part we have been providing, that we have provided enough of the better class subsidised house, and that what we have not done is to provide enough smaller houses for the poor person. If that be so, it follows as the night follows the day, that in the nation's present needs we must concentrate the whole housing effort on the provision of the smaller class of houses for the wage-earners, which are so difficult to provide except with State assistance. That is the policy of the Government at the present time, as it has been enunciated in the circular of the Ministry of Health, No. 1238.
What should be done at the present time is to concentrate the whole of the assisted subsidy effort on the provision of small non-parlour houses. That, I maintain, is the only possible policy in view of the actual facts at the present time. Does that mean that we are wholly to exclude the two-roomed house or the slightly bigger house for the larger
family? No, it does not. We have to provide the sort of houses which the country wants, and, if in a particular locality we find that there is a special need for the small two-roomed house for the old couple without children, let them build them. If in a locality a special case is made for the larger house for a family which is larger than normal, let the effort be devoted to meeting that special need. But as a national service, we find at the present time that we want to concentrate the effort that is assisted by the subsidy on the provision of houses of about 760 square feet area, three-roomed, non-parlour houses, which can be let at a maximum rent of 10s., including rates, and in London for a few shillings more. The situation needs careful watching, and will be watched to see if the circumstances change and need an alteration in the direction of the effort.
I have described what appears at the present moment to be the right direction of policy. The House will expect me to say, after a few words about the general state of the housing policy, a few words on another aspect of the problem which consists in remedying the evil of the slum area, and in the clearing away of unfit houses and the substitution of bad houses by better houses. That is an effort which must always continue along with the adequate supply of new houses of the type which the country requires. Under the Act of 1930, a very drastic method is applied for dealing with the problem. This Act is a very powerful engine, and when you have a powerful engine in your hands you need to use it with great caution. I am not surprised, therefore, to find that the local authorities are proceeding with great caution and that their policy is to go slowly. Nevertheless, under that Act schemes have been passed for clearance of areas which will finally lead to the clearing away of 13,500 unfit slum houses.
Another aspect is that of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which was extended in 1931. That is an Act which seems to me particularly appropriate to the needs of the present time. It provides for making the best of what you have got; in other words, for reconditioning existing cottages. It appears to me that in the difficult financial circumstances in which we find ourselves that is precisely the sort of general social effort in which we should he occupied. This may
be a time in which we cannot go forging ahead as fast as we should like, but although we cannot go ahead as fast as we might in prosperous times, nevertheless we need not be idle, because we can make good use of the period of marking time by looking round and making the best of what we have. That is the kind of work which is being done. I wish I could make that Act better known to those who might be interested in its administration. I should like to advertise it to-night and to enlist the assistance of hon. Members in bringing the powers of the Act to the attention of local authorities, with a view to its more widespread use throughout the country. So far, the number of houses dealt with is 4,469, and I hope further use will be made of the Act.
May I now refer to the Housing (Rural Authorities) Act, 1931, which was an Act passed towards the end of the last Parliament in order to make a special effort to deal with certain particular aspects of the housing problem? Under that Act the following action has been taken. The committee provided for under the Act has been set up and is in existence. The House would not be surprised to learn that they have met under the chairmanship of one who is extremely active in the promotion of the Act, a, recent colleague of ours and one with very great knowledge of housing—Sir Tudor Walters. The applications received for the construction of the houses under the Act, which applies particularly to rural areas, has not been as large as was expected. Nevertheless 112 applications have been received for some 2,000 houses, which are now under consideration, and the committee is continuing its task in the administration of the Act.
9.30 p.m.
I think that I have now dealt with the principal matters raised in the course of the Debate, and I have given sufficient of the leading facts on the housing situation as it stands at present to enable a judgment to be formed as to the policy which seems to be required by the circumstances of the time. I will supplement what I have said in one further particular. I have seen it suggested—it has not been said to-night, but has been suggested in other quarters—that there is a substantial relaxation of the housing effort of the Government owing to the
influences of considerations of economy. That is not the case. There is a substantial redirection of that effort in the manner I have described in order to make sure that the resources available are being used for the purposes for which they are most required, but a relaxation of the total effort there has not been. At the end of February—and these are the latest figures available—there were 38,429 assisted houses under construction, and at the corresponding day of February in the year before there were 36,348. There is no sign of a falling off there, and there has been no diminution in the building effort of the country. I cannot tell the House to-night what the relative state of unassisted building and private building is at present in comparison with the previous year, for I shall not know the figures for some months to come. Whether or not there has been a falling off in unassisted building I do not know. If there has been, it has resulted from no policy of the Government. Undoubtedly there is some relaxation and diminution in other forms of building. There has been a diminution of building of the larger houses and of big commercial and public buildings. That is simply the result of the general economic state of the country and of the bad times through which we are passing, and is not due to any policy of the Government. Further there has no doubt been a diminution in the undertaking of works or maintenance repairs which constitute so large a part of the work of the building trade. That is most certainly the result of the general tendency on the part of the nation to economise in these bad times, and to postpone works of maintenance and repairs until a better year. It has not resulted from any policy of the Government. In so far as the policy of the Government is concerned, there has been no diminution of the effort to deal with the great housing problem, and in so far as the building trade is suffering from difficult times, it is the result entirely of the general economic state of the nation and the spirit of caution and the desire for economy.
Let me say one final word in answer to the question asked me by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). He put to me the hard case of the housing authorities in the de-
pressed areas who are unable to collect rents. I am afraid the answer I must give him on this occasion must be the one I gave on a previous occasion. It would not be in accordance with common sense or to the advantage of policy as a whole that there should be local and special reductions of rent. That would lead to impossible anomalies. What can be done is to give sympathetic consideration to the question of arrears. Where arrears are hopeless, it is the practice of those who are responsible for the finance in this respect to permit arrears to be written off, and if written off they count as subsidy. Some local authorities take advantage of that provision and some do not, but it is in that direction I believe that the remedy and help for the difficulties the hon. Member has described are to be found, and not the really illegitimate and unsound proposal of local and special reduction of rents. I think the Debate will have cleared our minds on the subject of housing policy, and I trust the House will permit us to pass to the next business.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not in regard to the more depressed areas where a large number of houses have been erected since the War a mere revision of the original terms of the rent tribunal might not operate as a less danger perhaps than merely disposing of these arrears? Many local authorities regard that as very dangerous, and it might conceivably lead to some individuals shirking their real responsibility. I do not know whether that has been considered or not.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: There are two questions arising from the very clear and informed speech of the right hon. Gentleman to which I should like to refer. He alluded to the annual cost per house as being £7 10s. on public funds. I understand that that is the cost to the State, excluding the additional cost to local authorities, which amounts to another £3 or £4. Will he make it clear that the actual cost on public funds is £11 or £12 per year approximately? There is one other question relating to the Act of 1930. I understood him to say that schemes of slum clearance affecting some 13,000 houses had been approved.
Can he say what steps are taken by his Department to ensure, before those schemes are approved, that the houses are, in fact, in a condition which justifies procedure under that Act? In certain places, particularly in Manchester, schemes are being adopted when it is quite clear, so I am informed by technical men, that is, architects and medical men, that not more than 25 per cent. of the houses in the area coups be regarded as in a bad condition. The other 75 per cent. only require normal repairs, and not all of them that. Consequently, it great waste is incurred by sweeping away three reasonably good houses for every one that it is desirable to demolish. What machinery exists for the Ministry to ascertain, independently of the local authorities, who are so wasteful in these matters, whether the scheme is justified before sanction is given to it?

Mr. McGOVERN: The Minister has made one or two statements about housing upon which I wish to offer a. few comments. He has told us that the housing subsidy imposes a burden of £12,750,000 a year on the Exchequer, and appears to regard that as a tremendous sum for the provision of houses. I say that such a sum is totally inadequate. It is, roughly, the price of two battleships, and if the nation has to choose between battleships and houses the great majority of the people would prefer houses, would prefer to pay for the protection of human life rather than for its destruction. Whatever the Minister may say about the intention of local authorities, I say that the so-called national crisis, when economy was advocated, provided an incentive to those men on local authorities who are not keen to provide houses for the workers to slacken effort in that direction. On many local authorities, largely dominated by Liberals and Tories, the house factors and landlords, who control them, welcomed the call for national economy, in order to shut down housing schemes which they regarded as being detrimental to their own interest. We have 214,000 unemployed building trade workers and we pay them in unemployment benefit one-third of a million pounds per week, or £17,000,000 to £20,000,000 a year, for which we get nothing in return, and then we grumble about spending £12,750,000 on a subsidy for housing.
I would rather see the whole of that £20,000,000 spent as an additional subsidy to improve housing conditions.
The Minister has told us that local authorities may, if they so desire, provide two-roomed houses for aged couples. I say that any easing of the restrictions which are in operation will be highly dangerous, because authorities generally do not provide them for old people only, but take advantage of the opportunity they provide for lowering the standard of housing for the whole of the working class. While we could agree with the provision of two-room houses for old couples, who do not want to be burdened with larger houses, we should require guarantees that such houses would be used only for aged couples, and not made use of to lower the general standards of housing. We have thousands of houses totally unfit for human habitation in various areas, but when we approach the local authority to ask why they permit them to be occupied we are told they cannot put a closing order into operation because there is no alternative accommodation for the tenants. We find that the sanitary department, the health department and the housing department of local authorities are working hand in glove. I have always contended that it was the duty of a health authority to issue closing orders and leave it to the local authority to provide the alternative accommodation.
I think it will be found that a large number of local authorities are working in the way I have described, and that houses which are a danger to health and a menace to civilisation are permitted to remain, because some of the people who own them are members of the local authority. They sit on the housing committee and prevent the health department closing the houses because to do so would be detrimental to their own interests. Yet, at the same time, we have members of a family, including children, suffering from tuberculosis compelled to live 8 or 10 to a single room or in a room-and-kitchen house, and the authorities are paying no attention to the matter and making no effort to house them better. One day I went myself to see the local authority in connection with a man and woman living in a single room with a family of eight.—[An HON. MEMBER:
"Was that in Scotland?"] It does not matter where it was, I am giving the illustration. I do not come here to speak simply for Scotland. I am asking for a general improvement in housing. In the case I was mentioning a man and a woman and eight children, that is 10 of them, were living in a single-apartment house. One of the children was a boy who had been in an institution for two years suffering from tuberculosis, and he was infecting the other members of the family. In face of those conditions why boast about paying £12,750,000 in subsidies for housing. If hon. Members think that £12,750,000 for improving the standard of the health of the people is too much, let us cut down the standard pay of the moneylenders, and give the money to those who are at the bottom of the social ladder.
I mention these facts because we are not getting that general improvement in housing that is required. We are told that £1,800,000 has been spent upon houses since the end of the War. May I point out that the increase in the population has been 1,000,000, and we are not even meeting the needs of the increase in population in regard to housing, to say nothing of making up the deficit which faced us at the end of the War. We hear that the reason why so many men are unemployed is the lack of tariffs. There are 214,000 men unemployed in the building trade, and it is the duty of the Government to see that these men are employed to provide houses in order to meet the needs of the community. We are told that we have now come to a dead end in the provision of houses for the class who are not able to provide houses for themselves. I think we should go on with the building of all classes of houses. I recognise that we have, in many areas, a number of empty houses, but they are three, four, and five-apartment houses, and when you inquire you find that they are in such a state that no tenant ought to be asked to live in them, because they spread disease and are dilapidated, and the tenants have moved from them to better houses. We hear the landlords and the factors crying out that there is no need to build houses of the three, four, and five-apartment type, but we have to recognise that we must provide houses for the whole community
who need them, and who are living in overcrowded conditions, and in houses unfit for human habitation.
It is the duty of the Government at the present moment to see that houses are provided at a greater rate than they have been in the past. In many districts it is a tragedy to see young couples who wish to get married looking for houses where there are no suitable houses to be obtained because the local authorities have accepted the cry that there should be no more houses provided this year. We have, amid all these unhappy surroundings, many tenants who desire better houses, we have the material and the labour, we have plenty of idle money in London, and we have all the elements required for the provision of good and adequate houses. Instead of imposing more restrictions and economics, I think we ought to go forward to raise the standard of the health of the community and provide conditions under which the children of this country can live in decency instead of placing them in sanatoria where it costs three guineas per week to keep a child.

Sir JOHN RUTHERFORD: May I make a very short maiden speech, and in doing so put in a plea for the claim of those who live in the slums to be rehoused on the site? I have had some experience of this problem, having been a member of the Liverpool Housing Committee for nine years, and chairman for two years, and I say to the Minister that, so far as Liverpool is concerned, our desire to deal with this particular type of housing was hindered by the Act passed by the Labour Government in 1930. It will be remembered that before that Act was passed municipalities were promised an increased subsidy to carry out the work of slum clearance, but, instead of receiving an increased subsidy, there was a decrease. There is one particular Section of the Act of 1930 which hits the local authorities and the municipalities very seriously, and I would suggest that in any fresh legislation that Section should be taken into account.
During the last 10 years there has been a great growth in municipal building in Liverpool four or five miles away from the centre of the manufacturing area, or the area where the inhabitants of the
slums have to work. We endeavoured to decentralise matters, but, in spite of all our efforts, there are no sites less than four or five miles away from the manufacturing centres on which we can erect houses at the present time for these people. If we endeavour to get any site near the area where the people work, we have to pay a bigger price for the land. It may be that we have to pay an excessive price, but there is a Section in the Act of 1930 which provides that, of. the two subsidies given by that Act, the higher subsidy is possible only in the case of a municipal corporation if you have paid the landlord from whom you purchase the land a sum in excess of £3,000 per acre.
It seems a curious thing for any Labour Government to have inserted in an Act—that the higher subsidy is conditional upon an extra consideration being payable to a landlord. But there it is. I shall not defend its logicality. I pleaded against it; I spoke against it. It has worked hardly. It has put an extra difficulty in the way of municipalities. If the Minister is considering any amending legislation—and in many respects the Act of 1930 requires extensive amendment—I hope that in particular he will get rid of that Section and make the extra subsidy payable at his discretion, or at any rate on the total cost of the house and the land, and not dependent on the mere sum of money paid to a landlord or vendor of land for land bought by a municipality. This land is bought for the erection of houses for people Who really need them, the worst paid people who are living in the most insanitary dwellings in the middle of the City—dwellings which require to be destroyed and replaced by decent houses. If the Minister did that I am sure that he would remove one of the many brakes which have been put on the progress of housing -by the last Labour Government.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In spite of the criticisms levelled by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken against the last Government, I feel sure that we shall all welcome his contribution to this Debate. It is his first effort, and I must congratulate him on the spirited criticism of his speech. I have listened to a great deal of the Debate, and I wish we could continue to probe housing a little further. But the Minister has a great deal of work
to do apart from housing. He is responsible for about £40,000,000 of expenditure on the original old age pensions scheme. He is also responsible for the expenditure of about £11,000,000 on the Widows', Orphans and Old Age (Contributory) Pensions scheme; and in addition to that he has the colossal task of dealing with the problem of administration of National Health Insurance.
Ever since I have been a Member of this House we have never allowed the Ministry of Health Vote to pass from our hands without having a word or two to say of the administration of what I think is the best social insurance scheme in the whole world. I have something to do with the scheme myself, and I think I am entitled to say that much about it. When Members have spoken of the rights of the community and the welfare of mothers and children and so forth, I have endorsed practically everything that has been said in favour of creating more enthusiasm for better housing of the people. If I have one comment to make on that subject, having had a little experience on a municipality, I would say that I have always had the impression that municipalities desire that they could solve a great number of these problems without coming to Parliament at all. That was my experience after 10 years on one of the largest municipalities in England.
10.0 p.m.
But coming down to the problem with which I want to deal, I would very respectfully call the attention of the House to a very important document which has been issued recently. I do not know how many Members of the House care very much about the administration of the national health insurance scheme. If there are no slums in the areas represented by some hon. Members, it is certain that there are insured persons wherever they live, for there is no Parliamentary division without some persons insured under the national health insurance scheme. I want to draw attention to one or two very important points in connection with the last valuation results. The House will remember that this scheme is valued once every five years. It has now been in existence for about 20 years, and we have already received three quinquennial valuation returns.
I am sorry to say that the last valuation return was not as good as the one before, and it indicates that the approved societies are not in as good a financial position to-day as they were five years ago. The reason for that is that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the State grant to the scheme, and he has deprived the approved societies of approximately £30,000,000 up to date. Not all Governments are alike, but in any case no Labour Government has ever taken a penny piece from the sick population of the country; no Labour Government has ever reduced the grant to this scheme and thereby reduced the disablement benefit of the sick people of the country.
On turning to this very important document we find some extraordinary results. As I have said, this is the best social insurance scheme in the world. I think that that is admitted by everyone who knows anything about the subject. It is called in Lancashire, "The old ninepence for fourpence." I do not know whether that title fits in to-day, but nevertheless it is known in some parts of the country by that title. The main point that arises in the return is that the rich approved societies are becoming richer and the poor approved societies are becoming poorer. That is the central fact that emerges. It is proper to ask the Government, this Government of all the talents that knows everything and can settle every problem, what they have to say in reply to a report that points out that great disparity. We have the anomaly arising that the contributions of members of the same family from the same household may be exactly the same in respect of the employer and the worker, but we find a differentiation in the benefits payable to those members of the same family because they belong to separate approved societies.
The very depressing fact arises, in addition, that these approved societies cover depressed areas. Depression seems to have a cumulative effect wherever you find it. The poor societies covering coal miners only are in a bad way. Not only does the depression bring about a greater amount of sickness, but there is no contribution income, and where there is no contribution income there is naturally no
fund available. What are the intentions of the Government in relation to those societies that are in deficiency through no fault of their own? I know the provisions of the law very well in connection with societies where maladministration takes place, but, happily, the number of cases of maladministration under this scheme is extraordinarily small. The report of the Government actuary is the best evidence possible that under the wings of the State you can have as clean a scheme as under private enterprise. The reports that have been given in the past in relation to this scheme are extraordinary in that respect.
This is an extraordinary Government, as I have tried to indicate. There was, prior to the advent of this Government, a fund called the Army, Navy and Air Force Fund, and the insurance committees of this country representative of the municipalities, approved societies, and medical profession, used to disburse the benefit to the men employed in the Forces. Lo and behold, one fine morning this Government, with all its power, dictatorial as it has been, issued an edict and took away from these insurance committees, without any argument at all, the disbursement of the whole of the benefit to the men in the Forces. I know full well that there is a provision in the law for the Minister to do that, but at any rate he ought to have consulted the insurance committees, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he has created a very bad feeling among the insurance committees by what has been done.
I asked a question of the Ministry of Health on the Floor of the House, as to whether, in taking over the administration of this benefit, they have added to the staff of the Department, and I got the extrordinary reply that the Ministry of Health can disburse all these benefits without the addition of a single clerk, although it meant a considerable staff for the insurance committees to do this work. It is a marvellous Government and a most marvellous Department, and that is all that I can say about it. It seems to me, therefore, that if we handed the distribution of the benefits of all the approved societies in the country to this Ministry, the staff of the Department would decline proportionately, because the more work they are given, the less staff they seem to require. I would like to know how that
is done, because it is an extraordinary Government if it can do that. Then they made an arrangement with the doctors to reduce the panel fee by 1s., and—

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me that this subject would be much more appropriate to the Ministry of Health Vote, on Supply.

Mr. DAVIES: I thought I was in order, but I will very naturally be guided by you.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not usual, on the Motion for getting me out of the Chair, to raise all these details, which would much more suitably come on the actual Vote.

Mr. DAVIES: I will leave it at that and say that I think I am entitled to touch upon two or three questions that are shown in the Vote. We have ex-penditures—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is getting worse rather than better. He is getting on to the ordinary discussion that we have on the Supply Vote for the Ministry of Health, and that certainly is not suitable on the Motion for getting me out of the Chair.

Mr. DAVIES: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us a little more, at any rate, of the work of the Department, apart altogether from slumdom and housing.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am afraid that I shall not be able to do that without infringing the Ruling of Mr. Speaker, and I have never tried to do that during my time in this House. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), like myself, has been long enough in the House to know that Members' who were fortunate enough to get the luck of the ballot had the primary right of choice of subject on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and all that I can say, in reply to his general observations about the third valuation, is that it has not escaped the notice of the Government. Indeed, there are some factors in the report of the actuary that are of the gravest possible character and that are having the gravest consideration at the hands of the Government. More than that I cannot say to-night, but there will be, no doubt, a
later occasion on which we may discuss it at greater length, the length which it deserves. As the hon. Member knows, this is a question of 7,608 approved societies, of which the report shows that 7,001 have a surplus and over 400 a deficiency. He knows, what is sometimes misapprehended outside, that the surplus is not the general property of the insured persons as a whole, but the property of the particular society, showing the particular amount which makes up the total that is sometimes quoted as a surplus on the fund.
I might say, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, one word in answer to the hon. Member's gibes about the Department. We know that it is a wonderful Department, and we are glad to have confirmation from the hon. Member, but when he twits us with being able to do this work without the addition of a single clerk, he has not quite appreciated, although his knowledge of the subject is very wide indeed, the amount of duplication that has always been involved between the Ministry itself and the insurance committees in the work of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Insurance Fund. The fact is that the bulk of the work was always done in the Ministry, and the explanation is not the sarcastic one of super-cleverness in the Department made by the hon. Member, but that the bulk of the work was always done there; and not only shall we save £1,200 a year by the administrative rearrangement, but there is no question whatever but that in the bulk of the cases the ex-Service men affected will be saved a good many delays and comings and goings between the districts and the central organisation.
The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) raised a point on housing, and I would like to tell him that under slum clearance, if any objection is raised to a compulsory purchase order or closing order, and is not on explanation withdrawn, a, public inquiry must be held, and the objector may attend it or may be represented, and the Minister then must consider the objections before confirming the order, with or without modification. I think that that will give the information that he wanted to cover the local case, of which I have not got the details.

Sir J. NALL: That is not quite the point. I wanted to know on what advice the Ministry assures itself that a scheme is justified and is not wasted.

Mr. BROWN: The answer to that is that the Minister receives all the facts concerned and all representations made upon those facts from every quarter, whether it be from the local authority putting up the scheme, or from those affected or likely to be affected by the scheme; and, of course, the House will readily assume that if no objection is raised, the scheme is probably justified. The Act itself provides—it is a very powerful Act—the machinery that I have outlined, and I think that will cover the hon. Member's point. If there is any difficulty locally, he might perhaps communicate with the Minister about it, but I can assure him that this machinery will give all those who desire to put a point of objection to the making of an order adequate opportunity, so that their views may be heard before the order is confirmed by the Minister, after hearing the representations.
The hon. Member is right about the addition of £3 15s. He noticed in the Minister's speech that he first put the £130 per house, then £65 from the rates, but that he then went on to discuss the subject from the point of view of the general taxpayer, and that is why the omission of the £3 15s., which corresponds to the £65 from the rates, was not mentioned by him. I believe it is now the wish of the House that we should pass on to another subject, and I once more assure the hon. Member for Westhoughton that this grave report. of the Actuary on the Third Valuation in connection with Health Insurance is now receiving the anxious consideration of the Government.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before you put the Question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you for a Ruling for future guidance? As I understand it, we are on the Motion that you should leave the Chair in order that the House may go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments. To that Motion an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones), and that Amendment was disposed of by being withdrawn. I understood that, after that, we could discuss in a general way the Civil Estimates, but
I understand from your Ruling, and from a remark made by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the Motion on the Paper limited the discussion to one particular phase of the Estimates. I should like your Ruling on that point, because it will be a guide for us in the future.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the second Motion on the Paper?

Mr. LANSBURY: No, Sir. The point is that the first Amendment was disposed of, and we understood that, after that was disposed of, we could discuss the Civil Estimates generally. I just want to know whether we are mistaken in that understanding or not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House can discuss the Civil Estimates on this Motion, but it is most unusual to discuss upon it questions of detail, the proper place for the discussion of which is on the Vote of Supply for the particular Estimate which concerns the particular item. It is usual, on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," to discuss what I might call a large question in a general way, such as the question of housing which we have discussed this afternoon, but not questions of detail as to expenditure and so forth, the proper place for the discussion of which is in Committee of Supply, on the Vote which concerns the particular item.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only want to get the point clear for the sake of the future. We discussed housing, and discussed expenditure on housing, and we did so to some extent after the Amendment was disposed of. The point that I wish to put to you is as to whether we are not entitled in a general way to pass from that, subject to another subject, such as the administration of National Health Insurance, as my hon. Friend was endeavouring to do. We went into detail on housing, and I want to he quite clear that we are out of order in dealing with National Health Insurance. It seems to me that they are on all fours—that in each case we were discussing part of the Estimates. I want to get the real Order on the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is true that they are both part of the Civil Estimates,
which include innumerable different subjects, but the reason why I called the hon. Member to order when he war, discussing the question of National Health Insurance was that I thought he was going into details for the discussion of which the proper place was on the Vote of Supply concerned with that particular subject. I thought that we dealt with housing in a much more general way, not specifying particular items, on which there would be an opportunity on the particular Vote in Supply. That is all the difference.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Further on that point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that the report with which I was dealing affects a sum of money amounting to £120,000,000? I thought that, as the amount involved was even greater than the amount involved in connection with housing, I was entitled to raise some of the major points on that report. I would like to know whether there is a change ill that direction, because I have some recollection that we have been able to do this before on a similar occasion.

Mr. E. BROWN: I understand that you, Sir, would have made no objection whatever to the subject being raised in a general way had notice been given, but your objection was taken on the ground that the second subject that the hon. Gentleman raised had nothing to do with the report at all but was on details of the administration of the Army and Air Force Fund.

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Are we not, in fact, discussing the Second Amendment on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not so. The hon. Gentleman got in on the main Question. As to the question he put me, I do not think the amount of money has anything to do with it at all, but questions of detailed expenditure are much better discussed in Committee of Supply. Had the hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of health insurance in a general way, I should not have called him to order.

Mr. LANSBURY: As I understand the tradition of the House, getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair is an occasion for raising grievances before the grant
of Supply. This is the first opportunity, in Committee of Supply is another opportunity, and the Consolidated Fund Bill is a third. I have always understood that, in getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, we could raise any question connected with the Estimates in question. I want to enter the strongest protest against the doctrine that we are to give notice that we are to raise any subject. A Member of the House has the right to raise whatever question he thinks it his duty to raise.

Mr. E. BROWN: I had no intention of suggesting that at all. My remark bore upon the fact that our custom is that those who are successful in the ballot have the first choice.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not making any variation in what has always been the custom of the House. To show that that is so, when the hon. Gentleman came to me and asked whether he could raise the question of insurance, I said "By all means," and he spoke for some time before I called him to order, which is sufficient proof that there is full scope for general remarks. When he came to smaller details of expenditure, I thought they were much more suitable in Committee.

Mr. MAXTON: The Leader of the Opposition wants to be very clear on the matter. I do not feel that you, Sir, have made the position clear to me. Is it your Ruling that, when the Amendments on the Paper have been disposed of, it is then in order to discuss any item contained in the list of Civil Estimates.—National Debt Office, Government hospitality, Secret Service, etc.—and that your further point is, not that it is a breach of order to go into details, but that that has not been the usual practice? Further to that point, it has not been the usual practice to have any time left for general discussion after the particular Motions have been disposed of, but on this occasion there is time left. I want to ask you, Sir, if your Ruling is in two parts—that it is in order to discuss any item contained in the Civil Estimates, and that you are only giving an expression of opinion that it is unusual to discuss these items in detail which are more appropriate on the particular Vote.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that if I have not made myself clear, it is entirely my own fault. It is not a question of opinion as to what is not only the custom but the convenience of the House. I have not given a Hiding. The hon. Member will understand that in the Civil Estimates there is every conceivable subject, and it really would hardly be fair to Ministers to raise all the subjects, or any subject in the Civil Estimates without giving some notice beforehand that it was to be done. Therefore, it is very much more convenient when a particular Vote is before the House, that the Minister knows beforehand the subject to be raised. The hon. Member asked definitely whether it is in order to raise any subject. I say yes it is, but it is not convenient to raise it except in a general way.

Mr. LANSBURY: You have given a decision now about notice?

Mr. SPEAKER: I havegiven no Ruling, but I said that it would be more convenient and only fair to give notice.

Mr. LANSBURY: When we say a thing is fair it is something of which we all want to take notice. I only wish to ask you whether you consider that it is fair that a Member who has altogether another point of view or other information upon a subject which has been raised is not allowed to put it. Surely there is nothing unfair or unreasonable in his doing that? It is the custom to tell Ministers of the subject we propose to raise, but I only want to safeguard the right of the individual Member who thinks of a subject during the Debate and wishes to put questions to the Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members have all sorts of rights, but they do sometimes consider the convenience of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has been a Minister and will realise that it is inconvenient if subjects are raised of which he has had no notice whatever.

Mr. LANSBURY: I experienced that not once but at least several times, and I never complained. Hon. Members had a right to do it, and I was here to reply to them. The hon. Member opposite served me out one night but I did not complain. I only want to preserve the rights of other people.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am not preserving the rights of the House. I am desirous of doing so.

Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1932.

CLASS I.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £226,724, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."—[Norn:—£110,000 has been voted on account.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Sir A. Lambert Ward.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS PRO LONGATION (UNEMPLOYED PERSONS) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.30 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: This Bill is for the purpose of continuing the transitional period. We cannot object to its passing, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill is being brought in because we are not able to solve the unemployment problem. The Government have had five months of office without displaying any revelation of their ability to remove the unemployment question. Therefore, we have to carry on the transitional period and to bear with the unemployment problem for a further period of 14 to 15 months. I do not want the Government to think that because we agree to the Bill we accept the position for the whole of that time. We hope that the Government will consider some-
thing before the expiration of the 14 months. If we allowed the Bill to go without some protest it might be taken for granted that no further effort would be made by hon. Members on these benches. It would be wrong on our part to allow that feeling to prevail. On the question of the examination for transitional benefit, hon. Members opposite seem to feel a certain amount of gratification that the means of people are to be examined, in order to find out what they are.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss the means test on the Third Reading.

Mr. TINKER: Last night, on the Committee stage, we were held up on a particular Clause, and I took it for granted that the Third Reading of the Bill would give us an opportunity of expressing our dissatisfaction, or otherwise, with the position. I regarded the Third Reading as giving a wider scope than the Committee stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the Third Reading of any Bill the only subject that can be discussed is what is actually in the Bill. Nothing outside the Bill can be discussed on the Third Reading.

Mr. TINKER: In that case, I cannot continue my speech.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL [Lords.]

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Close season for grey seals.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(2) No Order made under this Section shall make lawful during any part of the period specified in Sub-section (1) the killing of grey seals except—

(a) by persons holding permits for the purpose granted by the Minister or the Secretary of State; and
(b) in such manner and by means of such weapon or instrument as may be specified in the Order."
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself have given very
serious consideration to the opinions which were expressed in the Debate during the Committee stage. Some apprehensions were then felt by various hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) with regard to the methods of slaughter which might be employed if the slaughter of seals was to be permitted by order issued under this Bill. There are provisions in the Bill as it stands, but some hon. Members seemed to doubt whether they were adequate, and we were most anxious to meet their views in order that there should be no question at all on the matter. Therefore, if the House accepts this Amendment it will ensure that if an Order is made allowing grey seals to be killed it will only be made in favour of persons holding permits granted by the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the manner in which grey seals are to be killed and the weapons which may be used will be specified. This will give those who are interested in this species the knowledge that only humane methods will be used for the purposes of slaughter.

Sir BASIL PETO: I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely for moving the Amendment. The words in the Bill left it open, if an Order was made by his Department or the Ministry of Agriculture for the slaughter of grey seals, for any person to slaughter grey seals and their young in the breeding season, provided that they used the weapons and the means prescribed by either of the two Ministries. It is quite obvious that if a general slaughter were authorised an inspection of the weapons would be impossible, and to confine the slaughter, as the Amendment does, to persons who are licensed by one or other of the Departments of State, and who are to use weapons prescribed by the Departments, will afford immense gratification to that large section of the public which takes a special interest in questions relating to what are known as the lower orders of creation. I have always had grave doubts about that phrase in dealing with animals of this kind. It is really inappropriate. At any rate, under the Amendment if an Order is justified in any case it is limited in its execution to the persons specially licensed to carry
it out, and in that respect it is an immense improvement on the Bill and am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) It shall not be competent to make any Order under this Section applying to the islands of Haskeir Mor and Haskeir Beig, in the Outer Hebrides, or to any place within three miles of any part of these islands, other than an Order extending the period specified in Sub-section (1) of this Section.
The subsequent Amendment, to omit Sub-section (4), which was accepted provisionally by the Secretary of State for Scotland, is consequential on this Amendment. In that Amendment, I had attempted to provide a sanctuary at all times of the year for grey seals, a place where no Order from the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State can run for the destruction of these animals. I also provided that that should apply to these islands—not I believe correctly described in the Bill—and for 12 miles all round them. The House will notice that although the nomenclature is slightly altered, the locality is the same, and it is limited to three miles round which is the usual definition of territorial waters. I cannot complain—and I do not wish to complain in regard to the Amendment—which I understand my right hon. Friend is willing to accept, of the fact that it does not give complete protection for the whole of the year.
The Bill deals with the power to issue orders for the destruction of the grey seal in the breeding season and this Amendment will provide a sanctuary as far as the 'breeding season is concerned as defined in Clause 1, Sub-section (1), namely, from 1st September to 31st December in any year. The practical destruction of these animals is impossible except in the breeding season and the House will notice that the only order that can be made is an order extending the close time and not limiting it. Therefore to all intents and purposes this grants a sanctuary of some kind. The sanctuary consists of two small islets which are always above the sea at high water. They are situate about seven miles north-west of the North Uist in the Outer Hebrides. I am told that the descriptions given in the Ordnance Survey are varied from time to time in regard to
these remote localities, and that Haskeir Mor and Haskeir Beig rightly describe them. They are two small groups about a mile apart and I think the House will be satisfied to know that they are extraordinarily suitable for the purposes of a sanctuary.
In the Committee stage I suggested that the Scilly Islands would be a more appropriate place but I am told that there are objections and I recognise what those objections are. From my point of view there is one great objection to the Scilly Islands, namely that they are the southernmost of the breeding places of the grey seal and are divided from all the other breeding places by an immense stretch of water. The islands specified in this Subsection are not so remote. I mentioned the opinion of the deputy-keeper of zoology in the British Museum, Mr. Martin Hinton, that these animals are so closely confined in their wanderings to the places where they breed that, there is no likelihood, if they are killed out in one place, of that particular place being repopulated from another. Obviously this is more or less a matter of opinion, but it must be more possible, if the place selected as a sanctuary is somewhat nearer the larger known breeding places of these animals. The principal breeding place until quite recently was the Treshnish Islands situated between Mull and Tiree, north-west of Staffa, only 90 miles in a direct line from these particular islands. There are others even nearer though not perhaps such strong colonies.
There is another reason why this is an appropriate place. My right hon. Friend informs me, from the information he has in his Department, that on these particular islands until recently there was one of the strongest colonies of grey seals. It was practically wiped out by a foray upon their young in the breeding season, and at the last inspection of these islands by his Department only four young and one old seal were observed. Therefore, we shall be saving in one locality this interesting animal from complete extinction, and we may fairly hope that with the rights given under this Amendment it may once more become a prosperous and populous colony. From all these points of view, the two Departments concerned have come to the conclusion, which is a proper one, and the granting of a sanctuary will, I am sure,
remove a great part of the objection which is felt to the power under this Bill, namely, that in certain circumstances Orders can be issued which might result in the complete extinction of the grey seal either generally or in any particular locality.

Lord SCONE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to add my thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the very considerate way in which he has met us in this matter. We have not got quite all that we hoped to get, but we realise that that was in the circumstances impossible, and we are quite satisfied with what we have got. Although we should have preferred that these islands should be a sanctuary all the year round, we recognise that in order to achieve this it would probably have meant the withdrawal and the drafting of the Bill, in which case it would have been doubtful when time could be given for its reconsideration. One need not be apprehensive that, although for eight months in the year it may be possible for seals to be killed in this sanctuary, there will be much danger of that happening. Anyone who has tried to stalk a grey seal in his native haunts knows that he is, except in the breeding season, very wary and most difficult to approach. His eyesight, as in the case of most seals, is indifferent, but his hearing is excellent and his scent very keen indeed. The chances of anyone disturbing him in these remote islands in the breeding season is very small. In the breeding season the young pup is unable to take the water for six weeks after birth. In that he differs from his brown cousin, as also in the fact that he is born in the autumn, whereas the brown seal is born in the spring. It is the horrible slaughter that used to take place on these and similar islands that has necessitated this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has been not only considerate but prudent in allowing us to bring forward these Amendments rather than bringing them forward as Government Amendments. It is unfortunately true that a number of those persons who are most anxious to be good to animals defeat their own objects by the very violence of the arguments they employ. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) were present, he could speak feelingly on
the subject. He has suffered badly from the intentions of would-be well-meaning cranks during his period of office as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Had these Amendments been brought forward as Government Amendments, some of these well-meaning cranky persons would probably have said that they did not go nearly far enough. The Government's acceptance of an Amendment brought forward by Private Members will make it plain even to the most advanced would-be protectors of the seal that a substantial agreement has been reached between everybody concerned, and all of us who are so anxious to protect the seals are satisfied with the treatment we have received at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. I most heartily support the Amendment.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I rise only to ask the House to accept the Amendment, and to express my indebtedness both to the hon. Baronet and the Noble Lord who have just spoken for the help they have given me in arriving at a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. Quite frankly, I had considered that the powers in the Bill were sufficient to safeguard the existing stock of seals, but the hon. Baronet and those associated with him made a, strong case, and carried the general feeling of the House so far with them on the last occasion that my right hon. Friend and I were certainly most anxious and willing, as at all times, to satisfy the general feeling of the House and to agree to this Amendment. In practice the effect of it will be, that although actually on account of drafting considerations we are not able to make this sanctuary all the year round, as the seals are only accessible and can only be killed in the breeding season, it will give them an area of rock where they will be absolutely free from any risk of slaughter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 18, leave out Sub-section (4).—[Sir B. Peto.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir B. PETO: It is a, matter for congratulation that we have now got the question of the protection of the grey seal into a more or less permanent position, and that it is not going to be raised annually on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The Bill before the House extends the close time and that is an immense advantage because it makes the close time, as defined in the Bill as it now stands, correspond to the breeding season of the grey seal and covers the whole of it, no matter what locality, as long as it is around these islands, and it also makes it permanent—two immense advantages. At the same time, I must frankly admit that I am not convinced altogether of the necessity for the proviso to Clause 1 which gives the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture power at any time by Order to direct that generally, or in respect of any area prescribed in the Order, there shall be no close time at all for grey seals. It seems to me that before issuing such an Order, reasons should be given for the Order.
I believe that the Secretary of State fully intends to investigate the matter thoroughly before any Order is issued, but it should depend on two things: Proof positive of damage done by grey seals to the fisheries, and proof that the damage is greater on balance than the benefits they confer; that they destroy more edible fish, which would otherwise be taken by our fishermen, than they destroy noxious, harmful fish which are better out of the way. Secondly, no Order should be issued unless it follows scientific investigation into what is the food of the grey seal. On that we have no proof whatever. We have had no proof in any of the Debates; no proof has been attempted. Certain statements have been made, but they have been based upon no authentic investigation. I will give the House two authoritative quotations. One is from a letter I received to-day from Mr. Martin Hinton, the deputy-keeper of Zoology of the British Museum, Natural History Department. He writes:
Please forgive me for not dealing with the grey seal sooner. I have been very much occupied with musk rats and whales during the last fortnight. The food of the grey seals consists of fish and crustacea of various kinds. Among the fish flounders are the most commonly eaten, but, in addition to this, cod, salmon, herring and many other kinds are taken when they can be got. The
fishing is done mostly in deep waters, though individuals sometimes learn the trick of visiting the nets or deep sea lines, and so may do damage.
The other quotation I wish to read to the House is from an articles by Professor W. G. Pycraft, probably one of the greatest authorities in zoology, contributed to the "Illustrated London News" of 9th April. He says:
Now, what facts can we produce to justify this slaughter of the grey seal, and equally of the common seal, which is just as viciously persecuted? We have none. All we can say is that these animals eat fish. A thousand common seals were destroyed on the Wash to satisfy the insistent demands of the fishermen, yet no attempt was made by any qualified person to examine the contents of the stomach of a single one. In spite of that holocaust we still do not know what forms the staple diet of the common seal.
He finishes his article, speaking of the grey seal, which is the subject of this Bill:
But before we proceed to exterminate these animals, and at the same time to stamp out all hope of obtaining an answer to a most important question, let us make some effort to discover what they feed on. It may well prove that, like owls and kestrels, they are our friends, not our enemies.
After what those two authorities say, may I not claim that the grey seal has been at the Bar of this House, and that the least we can do is to give it the benefit of the Scotch verdict, "Not proven," if we do not entirely exonerate it From occasionally, under stress of hunger, consuming a fish which it meets
in the open sea which would otherwise reach the fisherman's net? On balance, I think this Bill is a great improvement from the point of view of the grey seal, more particularly with the Amendment which we have just inserted. We have made sure that the grey seal shall not be exterminated. My reason for addressing the House on the Third Reading is that I hope the Department concerned will bear in mind that they have no proof on balance that this animal does harm to the fisheries of this country, and before any Order is issued the Department should have proof positive that that Order will do good and not harm.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

CHANCEL REPAIRS BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.